I almost just brought a DSLR but !

Messages
777
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
I just had to take someone to Currys PC world and as I'm looking for a new camera I thought I'd look at what they had, I picked up a Canon 4000D a 2000D and a simalar Nikon but boy did they feel naff ! They are very plasticy and the lenses on all of them felt like they were full of grit and quite jerky in the focus range. Are they all like this or is it just because there the entry level ones ? I think if this is the case I'll stick to the film cameras or even buy myself another Holga !
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,151
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#2
I have a recollection that when Canon brought out the AE1, many commented on the plastic feel - definitely not a serious camera :D
 
OP
OP
BADGER.BRAD
Messages
777
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
If they had felt o.k I would have brought one there and then. I had decided on one of these but wanted to see how they felt in the hand, In comparison to my SLRS ( cheap ones at that) they just feel really cheaply made and if I came across a film camera in a second hand shop where the lens felt that rough I would stay well clear ! On the other hand I looked at a couple of mirrorless ones they had on display ( admittedly more expensive) and they felt far better quality. I just cannot justify paying that much for something that feels like it's about to break at any moment.
 

AndrewFlannigan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
842
Edit My Images
No
#8
Those Panasonic GM5s couldn't have been much good. They're so small and light they can't possibly take decent pictures. Oh wait! I've got 2 of them... :runaway: :LOL:
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,151
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
Someone has to say it, so it might as well be me:-

"No photographer is as good as the simplest camera"
Edward Steichen

Hence buy Holga. You know it makes sense....
 
OP
OP
BADGER.BRAD
Messages
777
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
#10
I don't doubt for a second that these cameras take great photos in the right hands in fact I've seen the results. Maybe the demo models are extra battered but I would have expected better quality even at the entry level end of the spectrum. Even the cheap end of the Mirrorless cameras seem much more more robust. But everyone so far has missed the original question is there a big difference from the cheap end to the higher range cameras ? are they all plastic and is the quality of the lenses more up to build quality of the old SLR gear ? I don't think quality has anything to do with weight or size for that matter !

"No photographer is as good as the simplest camera"
Edward Steichen

I guess we have all been fooled !
 
Last edited:

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
32,601
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
#13
Pretty much all DSLRs are plastic with some being built round metal chassis. Likewise CSCs. Modern plastics can be almost as strong as metal and are pretty robust - not managed to break any yet!
 
Messages
12,384
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#14
I don't doubt for a second that these cameras take great photos in the right hands in fact I've seen the results. Maybe the demo models are extra battered but I would have expected better quality even at the entry level end of the spectrum. Even the cheap end of the Mirrorless cameras seem much more more robust. But everyone so far has missed the original question is there a big difference from the cheap end to the higher range cameras ? are they all plastic and is the quality of the lenses more up to build quality of the old SLR gear ? I don't think quality has anything to do with weight or size for that matter !

"No photographer is as good as the simplest camera"
Edward Steichen

I guess we have all been fooled !
A pro-camera is still a pro-camera, still robust and designed for a long life. Lenses tend to be made using more plastic because it has good thermal stability and lower weight, can be made more easily in complex shapes with less waste, but they are still tough, smooth and can be long-lasting.
 
Messages
2,499
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
I don't doubt for a second that these cameras take great photos in the right hands in fact I've seen the results. Maybe the demo models are extra battered but I would have expected better quality even at the entry level end of the spectrum. Even the cheap end of the Mirrorless cameras seem much more more robust. But everyone so far has missed the original question is there a big difference from the cheap end to the higher range cameras ? are they all plastic and is the quality of the lenses more up to build quality of the old SLR gear ? I don't think quality has anything to do with weight or size for that matter !

"No photographer is as good as the simplest camera"
Edward Steichen

I guess we have all been fooled !
Think you've said it all when you mention Curry's. Certainly not the ideal place to trial a unit in my opinion
 
Messages
2,554
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
#16
I just had to take someone to Currys PC world and as I'm looking for a new camera I thought I'd look at what they had, I picked up a Canon 4000D a 2000D and a simalar Nikon but boy did they feel naff ! They are very plasticy and the lenses on all of them felt like they were full of grit and quite jerky in the focus range. Are they all like this or is it just because there the entry level ones ? I think if this is the case I'll stick to the film cameras or even buy myself another Holga !
All I can say is go to a reputable camera shop, I’m not saying Curry’s are not reputable, but you will be lucky to speak to a camera expert in Curry’s, far better to try your local camera shop, and try a better range of cameras.
 
Messages
403
Edit My Images
Yes
#17
But then if it was metal you would be moaning that it was heavy for you lol. Cant win.

But yes they have to save cost, making high quality gear is expensive hence the monster price tags of pro gear
 
Messages
2,355
Name
thomas
Edit My Images
Yes
#18
Yes the first price dslr are very very cheap in hands. Viewfinders are small. Focus point spread is poor accross the viewfinder. Lacks button to not have to go in menus.
When i was canon i always when for the previous generation xxD instead of xxxD are the xxxxD feel even cheaper?
 
Messages
526
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
#19
All I can say is go to a reputable camera shop, I’m not saying Curry’s are not reputable, but you will be lucky to speak to a camera expert in Curry’s, far better to try your local camera shop, and try a better range of cameras.
and that is the reason to avoid :)
washing machines yes.... cameras a definate no
 
Messages
23,194
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#20
At the bottom end Canon save money on build, Nikon save money on features.

The bottom end cameras and lenses are not representative of a brands quality.

I’ve used low end film SLRs that are just as crappy as the digital equivalents (the awful cheap plastic is a modern phenomenon that has no relationship to digital or analogue).
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,151
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#21
As always, it depends on who works there. When our local Currys opened, they even carried exposure meters and had a former pro photographer on the sales force. Some years on, they have a Nikon (film camera) specialist. Just like Jessops, it's very dependent on the staff.
 
Messages
1,679
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
#23
Think you've said it all when you mention Curry's. Certainly not the ideal place to trial a unit in my opinion
Do they sell products that are different to those available elsewhere?
 
Messages
8,290
Name
wayne clarke
Edit My Images
Yes
#24
Those light flimisy cameras are tougher than they feel. A friends tripod blew over and her canon 750d landed lens down on a rock after going over the edge of a drop. The lens still half worked but the zoom ring was very stiff, the battery grip died (just a loose connection off it turned out) and the camera was fine. Still going stong.
Edit it did smash the filter.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,913
Edit My Images
Yes
#25
I disagree that the entry level cameras are crappy and flimsy, they are made from engineering grade plastics which are light and strong
I still have my first DSLR a canon 350D it’s been well used in all weathers and still works perfectly
I still use my 550D when I want to travel light it has excellent image quality
I use a more upmarket camera now a 7D mk 2 just because I prefer the controls and it has better autofocus
 
Messages
2,499
Edit My Images
Yes
#26
Do they sell products that are different to those available elsewhere?
Generally same product different model number. My comment was relating to the way the items are looked after and fixed on display. Also the staff element wouldn't help anyone
 

AndrewFlannigan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
842
Edit My Images
No
#28
It’s the entry-level lenses which let down the more inexpensive camera, imo.
On the other hand I've been very impressed with some of the cheaper zoom lenses. Not being a great one for test charts I just go by whether or not I like the results. Your mileage will, as always, vary from mine.

Some samples from a Sigma 28-300mm lens that cost me all of £70...

Canon 5D_one 8GB 08 IMG_2836.JPG

Canon Eos 5D_one 8GB 08 IMG_3554.JPG

Canon 5D_two 8GB 12 IMG_0063.JPG
 
Messages
3,816
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#29
On the other hand I've been very impressed with some of the cheaper zoom lenses. Not being a great one for test charts I just go by whether or not I like the results. Your mileage will, as always, vary from mine.

Some samples from a Sigma 28-300mm lens that cost me all of £70...

View attachment 251708

View attachment 251710

View attachment 251709
That's not the sort of lens I meant. I mean some of the so-called "kit" lenses supplied along with bodies, by the same manufacturer. Although there are exceptions there, of course, such as the excellent Fuji 18-55.
 

AndrewFlannigan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
842
Edit My Images
No
#30
That's not the sort of lens I meant. I mean some of the so-called "kit" lenses supplied along with bodies, by the same manufacturer. Although there are exceptions there, of course, such as the excellent Fuji 18-55.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I can remember some of the standard lenses which were too common in the 1960s and at any aperture wider than f8 looked like the proverbial "bottom of a milk bottle" had been used. By comparison with those the results I've seen from various kit lenses have been good.
 
Messages
1,426
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
#31
I haven’t used an entry level SLR for a little while but I recently had a quick go of the Nikon D3500 in a camera shop; that camera surprised me in a couple of ways. The build of it was pretty good and felt more up market than some of the others I tried in the price range, the grip was nice and deep too, obviously taken some notes off the D750 as that is small but comfortable to use too.

I’m still impressed with my little original EOS M, a small little thing that cost £200 with the 18-55 and flash. The build of that is superb, and that lens is also a good little performer, I’ve also added the 22mm to the setup for a pocket camera while it was on offer at £99. That’s a heck of a capable camera setup for £299, only let down slightly by its sluggish AF in low light; good light it’s fast enough to keep up with an energetic 3 year old :LOL:
 
Messages
3,997
Edit My Images
Yes
#32
Put simply; you can't get a Rolls Royce for Mini money! Would you expect a £20 pair of walking boots to be as well made, comfortable and durable as a pair costing £200? If you're only going to wear them once a month for a gentle 20 minute stroll in the park in dry weather then the £20 boots might seem like great value for money, but if your main hobby is hill walking then you'll probably think a £20 pair feel cheap and flimsy in comparison to what you are used to wearing.
 
Last edited:

AndrewFlannigan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
842
Edit My Images
No
#34
More often than not these days I'm happy to find I get more than I pay for; especially when it comes to cameras and lenses. :woot:
 
Messages
1,229
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
#35
At the bottom end Canon save money on build, Nikon save money on features.

The bottom end cameras and lenses are not representative of a brands quality.

I’ve used low end film SLRs that are just as crappy as the digital equivalents (the awful cheap plastic is a modern phenomenon that has no relationship to digital or analogue).
There are some features that lower end Canon miss for example I don't think they have Auto focus micro adjustment nor expo sim. To be honest my perfect canon camera would be one with Canon 7D MKII features (plus focus stacking) and 550 build. I don't have any problems with build for the cheaper cameras it makes them much lighter and as I have a dodgy shoulder much better.
 
Messages
1,053
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
#36
Pretty much all DSLRs are plastic with some being built round metal chassis. Likewise CSCs. [ul]Modern plastics can be almost as strong as metal[/ul] and are pretty robust - not managed to break any yet!
From an engineering and pedantic view-point, there are many kinds' of 'strength'

Significantly, Tensile or how much force it can be pulled before it breaks; compressive or how much force can it be pushed by before it breaks, 'Bending' syrength is s dunction of the two; fatigue strength is how many times and how far you might bend the materisl before it breaks; and so it goes on....
And a materiallike metal, may be very very strong in compression, but hopelesss in fatigue... which is why skyscrapers have steel frames, but aeroplanes have hier wings replsaced at regular intervals.
AND, an awful lot of 'strength' is endowed NOT by the material, but the 'section' of the artifact.

Many 'plastic' and being a pedant,l lets qualify that as a yman made polymer, 'cos plastiv just means moldeable or maleabe, and warm or hot metal is actually plastic.... but many polymers, actually have 'strenghth' ratings higher than a lot of comon metals... they just remain 'plastic' and have a large degree of deformeable elasticity before they actually break.... and its actually that which we discern as making them 'feel' plastiky...

And in artifact, it can ironically be that 'plastic-ness' a certain amount of give before the structure actually breaks than makes the structure in a polymer stromher than in a metal.

EG: what's 'Stromnger' a 1" thick plate glass window, or an 8mm window made of perspex?

However.. here im lies answer to Badger's query. Its NOT the material that makes them feel cheap... they feel cheap cos they is cheap.... same applied to manual focus film camera lenses made of metal thirty plus years ago....

More expenbsive lenses will have a nicer 'feel' because they are made to a different grade, not necesserily 'cos they are made out of a more expsnsive material.

But generally, the more you pay the better they will feel. (Give or take the odd ecconomic anomoly!)
 
OP
OP
BADGER.BRAD
Messages
777
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
#37
I must admit Currys have never had the best record, everytime I go there (which is rare ) it's 50/50 wether the item is in stock even though it shows online they have plenty and the few things I have brought I reckon 50/50 again have had some sort of fault or issue. The only reason I was there was I was taking my daughter to a shop nearby., I don't do towns/ shopping centres ,I reckon it's been 25 years + since I last entered Wolverhampton( my nearest large town/city). One of the cameras I did look at that felt nice was the Sony a5100 which seemed a good spec but I wasn't sure about not having an eye finder has anyone any experience with these ?
 
Messages
2,104
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
No
#38
When my father bought an EOS1000f over 25 years ago it felt to me like something he would have bought for his grandson, then aged five or six. Entry level DSLR bodies don't feel any worse now although I'll admit the lenses might.
 
Messages
4,645
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
#40
It's strange how making things smaller and lighter is seen as progress in many areas of product design and manufacture, but photography gear nerds see it as a bad thing.
 
Top