Newbie Question on Camera Types

A

aces_up1504

Messages
89
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, first post and hopefully some can provide some clarity to what i should be looking at as i am a little lost.

Background: My wife has shown an interst in taking up photography as a hobby. Its her bday in about a months time. So seems an obvious present to get her a camera. We have had a little chat and set a budget of around £150 and probably second hand.

So the question is what does that buy us and what is the best type of camera to buy for someone new at photography but would like more than a point and shoot type camera.

So far for the money mentioned:

I have seen a couple of DSLR, mainly Cannon D300 and a D60 6.3mp available with lens for that budget

Secondly the bridge type camera, all manner of pricing points second hand. What are the advantages / disadvatages of this type of camera?

Lastly the mirrorless camera with interchangable lens,

So would be great if someone could point me in the right direction?

or would looking for someking of course maybe online based, where she can learn the basics of using the camera properly.

thanks and look fowards to your help and clearing the muddy waters!
 
I'll try...

DSLR's... The best probably still give the best image quality available from consumer digital cameras and you get to choose which expensive lens suits you best. The negatives include being bulkier and heavier than some other options.

Mirrorless... Panasonic and Olympus Micro four thirds, Sony Nex and the others... Smaller and lighter than DSLR's with image quality that arguably in some cases matches or even betters the entry to mid level DSLR's. The negatives for some are that the controls can be smaller and more fiddly than those of a DSLR or perhaps not mechanical controls but button or menu based. Some of the lenses are very good but seem expensive although they're probably comparable to DSLR lenses given their spec and quality.

Bridge cameras... These may be a convenient do it all choice and some have a very wide zoom range but they can not really match the ultimate image quality of the mirrorless or DSLR's options particularly in more challenging situations such as lower light. But some are perfectly valid choices. My sister has gone from DSLR to bridge for holiday use as the DSLR was really too bulky and too heavy for her and she's happy with her choice as now she's more likely to have her camera with her.

For £150 I think I personally would bypass the bridge option and go for a used DSLR or micro four thirds plus basic lens. Besides the DSLR options you've spotted you may be able to bag a Panasonic micro four thirds G1 or G2 with a 14-42mm lens for your money. These have an EVF and articulated back screen and are much more compact and lighter than a DSLR and that matters to me these days. On the other hand, I had a Canon 300D and thought it was ok.

I suppose a lot of it comes down to the handling and bulk really. If she's ok with the weight and bulk the DSLR is a valid choice but if a smaller and lighter camera might get used more a micro four thirds camera or even a bridge camera may be the way to go.
 
Last edited:
Cheers for the reply.

So with the bridge your sacficing overall qualilty for all round usability. Interms of the zoom this where my knowledge runs out. It appears x24 optical zoom appears a common choice but how does this compare to 14-42mm lens for example? or is like comparing apples and oranges?

obviously if was looking at older DLSR the MP is somewhat lower than a micro 3/4. Is that some thing i should be concerned about?
 
Not particulalrly, I have my old Canon 350D, which you may be able to get secondhand within your budget. That is 8MP which is more than adequate. Numbers can get confusing for newcomers, so a 24X zoom is just a measure of the range covered eg 10mm-240mm a good standard lens for a camera like the 350D is 17-55mm which is reasonably wide angle and just long enough to shoot people without having to be right on top of them.

The thing is to start simple and see how it goes, before worrying too much about what setup she will need. If it spurs an interest in Bird photography for example then a very long telephoto will be required ( and expensive :) )

Is there a local camera club you could perhaps pop along to see what gear people have and get some advice, or find some kind soul on here that is near to you. I see your location isn't flagged up in your profile.
 
Cheers for the explaination on the zoom, i have always wondered how the lens fitted with zoom number.

For interest i am in the Liverpool area
 
I wouldn't worry about the mp count, at all. More stuff...It's difficult comparing zoom ranges. Mostly the ranges quoted are "full frame equivalents" but it gets complicated as many cameras have a "crop factor" which effectively cuts the middle of the image out and throws away the outer areas.

Numbers like 14-42mm are pretty easy to deal with but with things like "24x zoom" we'd need to know the focal length of the lens and the "crop factor" to work out the field of view you'd end up with.

Basically, a bridge camera will give you a quite wide field of view to a quite long zoom, a do it all. I've just looked at the spec of one 24x zoom bridge camera and it has a (full frame equivalent) 24-600mm lens. On micro four thirds a 14-42mm (full frame equivalent = 28-90mm) is quite wide to moderate zoom but nothing like the zoom you'd get from a bridge camera. The 300D probably comes with something like a 17-50mm lens (full frame equivalent = 27-80mm.)

Another thing which I didn't mention is depth of field. You nay have seen shots where the subject is in focus and the background is all blurred? This relates to depth of field and it's a rather confusing thing to go into here and now but if your wife would like to achieve that sort of look a DSLR or a micro four thirds camera is probably a much better choice than a bridge camera.
 
Cheers thanks for spending the time to explain it.

So although the bridge camera are ok, they are just a step up from Point and shoot and if she wants to learn to take photos rather than just taking photos DSLR or Mirco four thirds is the way to go dispite the lack of zoom.

I like the sounds of the micro 4/3 due the smaller size, so would probably suit her more than the DSLR. Do i stand much chance with a £150 budget or i am going to open the wallet some more?
 
As far as I know the sensor in some bridge cameras is pretty much the same chip or at least the same size as the one you'd find in a "compact" camera.

For anyone interested in photography and getting creative I think that a DSLR or MFT is the way to go. At £150 you may snag a Panasonic G1 and 14-42mm lens, I'm sure I've seen them go for that, but you may have to hunt.

There's a big thread in the General section here...

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=262800&page=177

if you'd like to see what these cameras can do.
 
For £150, and for someone starting out wanting something a bit more advanced than a bog standard compact, I would go for a Bridge camera. It can do everything from Macro to very long telephoto, maybe not at the quality level of a DSLR, or in in challenging lighting situations, but to just see if one has an interest, and which direction that interest will take them, then I think a Bridge camera is ideal.

It also has enough manual control to see how it all works, Exposure mainly, but all the other features in the camera. As long as it's taken off auto of course. ;) :lol:

If the kind of Photography the person is interested is known, and it's something specific like portraits or sport, then a DSLR and appropriate lenses would be better imho. But it would probably be more than £150.
 
Last edited:
I started off with a Panasonic Lumix FZ45 bridge camera which got me used to manual settings rather than auto everything which was great and I was very pleased with some of the pictures that I took.

Then I wanted to do some bird in flight pictures and got more and more frustrated with my failure to get a decent one, realising that it was the camera and not my ability at fault! (shutter lag!) so I bought a Nikon D40 which was a HUGE advance.

I think what I am trying to say is maybe do some learning with a bridge camera first (cheaper option) and then move on when you feel restricted/decide what type of photography suits you best.

Good luck in your search and get your wife to join TP!

Heather
 
The G2 will give the same image quality as my G1. These cameras use a 12mp chip and it's a bit old tech now but will give good / reasonable results and is useable at all ISO's upto and including ISO 1600. There'll be some noise in higher ISO images but with careful use and modern software to get the best out of it good results are possible. I'm quite happy.

Get a good deal and it'll be a good starting point.
 
aces_up1504 said:
Whats the thoughts on

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-G2K 12, Priced @ £200

Good price?
Click to expand...

Does that include a lens?

There's a few DSLRs available from LCE within your budget (link). The canon 350D/400D with the 18-55 kit lens. It's worth picking up a copy of Amatuer Photographer and looking through the advertisers at the back.
 
I would go for a DLSR and kit lens. You then have massive scope depending on how she get's on with it, which lens shes may want. My wifes first camera was a DSLR her dad gave her and she loves it. She is also a lof DoF queen so has never taken of the 50 1.7 that was on the camera!

I just bought a Canon 20D in immaculate condition for £100. I like prime lenses so picked up a new 50 1.8 for £73. I now have a camera that to me performs very well (speed, AF, functionality) gives as good IQ as I ever need and feels great to use.

I am actually surprised that such an old camera (8 years) is still so good as 8 years is a long time in digital development.
 
I'd go for a bridge camera. Most, if not all, have the same exposure controls as a DSLR so what you wife learns on a bridge camera can be transferred to a DSLR later, if she wants to move on.

There are limitations with bridge cameras but in many situations they will produce excellent photos.

My only experience with bridge cameras is the Panasonic FZ28 (an old camera now) and it was and still is a good camera, but there are many others out there. Have a look at some photo mags as they often have mini reviews which can give an indication of what is liked, then look for an in depth review.

I don't know the camera you asked about - LUMIX DMC-G2K, but the concern I'd have about it is the lack of a viewfinder, which means it would be used at arms length to see the LCD screen and in bright sunlight that could be difficult. I just prefer using a viewfinder and it helps to steady the camera when taking the shot. I think most bridge cameras have an electronic viewfinder, which some do not find easy to use. Trying one out would be useful, but appreciate that as the camera will be a present you may not want your wife to know about it before her birthday.

Dave
 
Alastair said:
Does that include a lens?

There's a few DSLRs available from LCE within your budget (link). The canon 350D/400D with the 18-55 kit lens. It's worth picking up a copy of Amatuer Photographer and looking through the advertisers at the back.
Click to expand...

Yep that is including the lens
 
One thing that the likes of the G2 have going for them is that almost any lens can be used as a manual focus lens with them once you have the correct adapter.

For example, there are some seriously cheap but rather good lenses from the film days from the likes of Olympus, Canon, Nikon etc... and once you've bought an adapter, for example a Nikon to Micro Four Thirds adapter off ebay, they work on your camera - but you have to focus manually.

MFT plus old manual lenses is a good and interesting way to go IMVHO.

PS. Just to prove I'm not a MFT fanboy :D I do have a DSLR and I think that a DSLR is an equally valid choice :D For example, a previous poster mentioned the Canon 20D. This is an APS-C camera and it's capable of very good results, I had one for over seven years. It is however bigger and heavier than something like a G2 especially once you add a lens.
 
Last edited:
Tringa said:
I don't know the camera you asked about - LUMIX DMC-G2K, but the concern I'd have about it is the lack of a viewfinder, which means it would be used at arms length to see the LCD screen and in bright sunlight that could be difficult.
Click to expand...

There are some very cheap and useful solutions to that problem Dave. Using an LCDVF turns your rear-screen into an electronic viewfinder with no sunlight issues.
 
Just to be clear...

The G2 has an EVF and a back screen, so you can use either.

All Panasonic G series camera have an EVF AFAIK. It's the GF range that don't and only have the back screen.

Personally I turn the back screen to the body and pretend I'm using a film camera :D I think it's a great way to use this sort of camera.
 
Last edited:
Cheers for you continued imput guys.

So is £200 around the right price for LUMIX DMC-G2K Second hand?

Regarding the extra lens issues, Woof Woof mentioned that the G2 can be adapted to hold other type of lens on manual, is the same applicable to EOS cannon DSLRs?

I am also going to throw in a curve ball. My Dad has given me a cannon lens EF-S 18-55mm but the problem being the attachment has been damaged, see picture below

DSC_0381.jpg


He said he dropped it off the table, but looks like the connections have sheared off. Is the cost effective to repair? Making the need to buy a body only DSLR?
 
I would guess it was dropped off the table with the camera still attached to cause that damage.
That lens can be picked up second hand/working on ebay for between £10-35, with dealers asking a bit more, so it may well be uneconomic to fix. :(

A lot of the crop-sensor DSLRs will have this kit lens included, unless the kit is being split for sale, so you may well end up with a working one anyway if you decide to get a Canon.
 
aces_up1504 said:
Regarding the extra lens issues, Woof Woof mentioned that the G2 can be adapted to hold other type of lens on manual, is the same applicable to EOS cannon DSLRs?

I am also going to throw in a curve ball. My Dad has given me a cannon lens EF-S 18-55mm...
Click to expand...

Yes, you can get adapters to mount other manufacturers lenses to Canon bodies. See here for some exemples of adapters to fit this to that etc...

http://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/other_accessories/body_adaptors/140_0c.html

Mounting Canon EF lenses to other bodies is a little more of a job as they don't have aperture rings, although some adapters do. Older Canon FD mount lenses have an aperture ring. Also note that Canon EF lenses will fit Canon EF full frame or APS-C bodies but Canon EF-S lenses will only fit Canon APS-C EF-S compatible bodies. Note also that when mounting some lenses to some bodies with some adapters you lose infinity focus.

As said, that lens probably isn't worth your time. Personally I'd probably make it into a paperweight or just have fun taking it apart to see how it works.
 
Last edited:
What does your wife think?

If the camera is for her to use she needs to go and hold/try some out to see what suits her.

What part of the country are you in?

Heather
 
Where in Liverpool

We had a little look over the weekend, she felt that the DSLR where ok weight and size wise, but she liked the smaller m4/3 due to it being lighter.

I think the smaller size of m4/3 would mean she would take more photos as she have it her in possession more often. But also think it throws the bridge type camera back into the mix
 
Go for the micro 4/3 if you can, the sensor is much larger than the small sensors in bridge camera's and are a level above bridge camera's

Lens wise they are often available with either a 20mm pancake lens which is an excellent fixed focal length lens or with the 14-42mm which again gives you a good standard zoom lens.

The G2 does have an electronic viewfinder so can be held and used as a standard DSLR would, but should be small enough to fit into the wifes handbag if needed.
 
I started with a Canon 350D and 50mm f1.8 and loved it to death. It'll produce stunning images beyond anything a bridge can produce and probably a M4/3 in your budget.
 
The only reason to go 4/3 or bridge over DSLR is size. You have not mentioned whether your wife is bothered about size?
If size is not a consideration I can't see why anyone would not want a DSLR. They just simply work better (faster AF, physical buttons and dials) and are nicer to use (optical view finder) and easier to hold and take shots with (i.e. shutter button location).
 
The23rdman said:
I started with a Canon 350D and 50mm f1.8 and loved it to death. It'll produce stunning images beyond anything a bridge can produce and probably a M4/3 in your budget.
Click to expand...


Are you the 23rd man who used to use a well known golf forum? Have you given the game up now?


Will probably end up with a DSLR just more so that the used prices are far more competive than m4/3s
 
ernesto said:
The only reason to go 4/3 or bridge over DSLR is size.
Click to expand...

MFT does have a few advantages over DSLR's as well as the more obvious size and weight issue.

MFT are (arguably) better at video and hacks are available for the Panasonics if you're a hard core movie maker.

MFT (arguably) suffer less from contamination both on the sensor and in the viewfinder.

MFT can probably accept more lenses more easily, but with lack of AF and other functions.

MFT (when you select the right body and lens combo) have the fastest auto focus of any interchangeable lens camera. However, although the AF can be blisteringly fast, faster than any current DSLR, AF tracking may not be as good. Neither is frame rate/sec.

MFT will allow more accurate manual focus in low light than a DSLR. Long after AF has given up. But a DSLR is better in darkness IMVHO.

MFT doesn't suffer the front/back focus issues that seem to plague some people / DSLR's / lenses.

There are drawback too so it's swings and roundabouts really.
 
and all of those very debatable advantages can be had on a MFT camera and lens for £150 ?
 
Interesting i have caused such a debate of the merits of both types.

Its very unlikely that £150 will stretch to M4/3. So either we up the budget or settle for a 8 year old DSLR. mmm interesting choices to be made
 
woof woof said:
Possibly, possibly not. But you wont get much DSLR for £150 either, will you?
Click to expand...

As stated above, a 20D can be had for £100. Even though it is old it is still better than a £100 4/3 camera as that doesn't exist :)
 
If you see a 20D for a £100, can you point them in my direction and i will bite their hand off. Seem to be a lot more expensive then that
 
ernesto said:
As stated above, a 20D can be had for £100. Even though it is old it is still better than a £100 4/3 camera as that doesn't exist :)
Click to expand...

I had a 20D for over seven years and sold it for more than £100 although I do accept that you might get a tatty one for that. Mine was in A1 condition. I have a G1 which I got for £125 although that was some time ago and I've seen them go for less since.

Each camera has it's good points and I believe that I've offered balanced advice to the OP although to be fair he may prefer your somewhat pointless and vaguely argumentative interjections but personally I doubt you've actually used any of the 4/3 kit mentioned here :lol: Hey ho.

OP. Good luck choosing :D
 
Last edited:
aces_up1504 said:
If you see a 20D for a £100, can you point them in my direction and i will bite their hand off. Seem to be a lot more expensive then that
Click to expand...

I bought one last week and it is mint - £106

There are a steady stream of them going on eBay - I just had to wait for a few days and keep bidding just over £100 until I got one. Find one that is ending on say 11:00 on a weekday. Just checked eBay and in fact one sold this morning at 09:20 for dead on £100 and was listed as like new.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top