used or new

T

Tekagudun

Messages
176
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
hi all
so im upgrading from point and shoot camera to dlsr as starting to get the bug
I understand that there is a very wide range of cameras to choose from,
my thinking rightly or wrongly, would be to go for a used camera body
and buy a couple lenses to suit
ive looked at the entry level cameras and im sure that they are suitable for what I need at this time
but if im thinking of upgrading again in the future
I might a s well bite the bullet now
camera body I like is the Nikon d7100 which can be available with 2000 clicks for around £ 500
but what lenses ?
budget top end of £900 for both camera and lenses
appreciate all comments
 
D7100 is a good choice. Price looks a little on the high side, but to answer your question, yes get a used body, and spend the best part of your budget on decent lenses. I'd suggest second hand lenses too, you can always move them on for close to what you paid for them.

Someone on here recently said, consider a camera body to be a consumable, but your lenses to be permanent. Or words to that effect.
 
To save you upgrading tons of things in the future. Maybe a full frame camera like D700? Can be bought for around £500 ish. Invest the rest of your budget on FF lens, save you time and money to resell and rebuy everything .......

Unless you know you want crop sensor and thats what you want.

£900 and if you patient enough, you can get the D700 body and add either the 24-120 f4 VR lens or grab yourself the 50mm prime and a wider prime.

You can also check out the canon FF camera too.
 
Last edited:
If I was going to buy a SLR today I would go FF too. But if you do go with the d7100 the tamron 17-50 is a nice combo within budget.
 
I figured on the 7100 because of higher pixels
But reading posts on here that doesn't seem to be an issue
The 700 has great feedback from owners
No video wouldn't be a problem for me
It's lens choice for a broad range of subjects
Thanks for replies
 
Forget which brand go and try a few out see how they feel in your hand, do you like the menu set up are the buttons right for you. Above all don't settle for I will get used to it
 
The d7100 is a great camera for mid/high enthusiast dslr. Yes ergonomics are important too.
With a decent budget of £900, you could afford a decent 2nd hand range of d7100 £350 ish, 18-70 (one on here for £95) which is an amazing bargain for such an amazing lens, 70-300 for £250 ish, leaving you enough you could get a 50 or 35mm prime on top.
At 2nd hand you'd have 95% of focal length covered for pretty much any situation and when your further down the line and decide a specific route, wouldn't lose much selling on.
Going full frame upfront might save a bit if you really want quality but initial kit would be much more limiting with regards any scenario covered.
Don't forget a decent bag, spare battery are fairly essential and eat up budget quickly too.
 
Last edited:
D700 & a Tamron 28-75 would make a great FF starter package for sensible money.
That's what i got for the mrs & her photography came on in leaps & bounds from her D90
 
I have 4 camera bodies, none of them are full frame and I doubt I will ever bother because for the stuff I like to shoot a crop body is ideal. Same with lenses, because of what I like to shoot I favour 500mm+ and have little use for wide angle glass.

So you have a budget ... what subjects do you prefer to shoot?
 
Mainly landscape
But various subjects
Not wildlife so just looking for a good solid combination
Second hand stretches the possibility a bit more
Any recommendations of retailers
Thanks
 
I know you're looking at DSLR but if you were willing to consider m4/3 you could put a very nice kit together with a £900 budget.

My suggestion would be (all approximate second hand prices):
  • Olympus E-M10 £250
  • Olympus 17 f/1.8 £250
  • Olympus 45 f/1.8 £150
  • Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS £100
  • Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm f/4.0-5.6 £100
I have all of the above lenses and the E-M10II myself.

Sorry don't know much about Nikon but in the Canon world a very nice crop sensor setup would be:
  • Canon 40D / 500D £120 - these are screaming bargains if you ask me
  • Canon EF-S 10-18 STM £180
  • Canon EF 35 f/2 IS USM or Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM £350
  • Canon EF 50 f/1.8 STM £100
  • Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM Lens £200
Canon full frame alternative:
  • Canon 5D £250
  • Canon EF 50 f/1.8 STM £100
  • Canon EF 24-105 f/4 £350
  • Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM Lens £200
As a general rule I would spend the least amount possible on a camera body (no more than 30% of your budget) and the rest on lenses. Reason: most digital camera bodies will lose almost all of their monetary value over time whereas lenses tend to hold their value much better if they are optically up to scratch. For reference the Canon 40D had a RRP of £900 when it was launched in the UK and the Canon 5D had a RRP launch price of £2539!
 
I won't discount Fuji too. You can probably build a nice small kit on Fuji but don't sacrified quality.
 
thanks for all the replies
which gives me even more to think about
think im settled on the d700
can get them for good prices with little use
there are so many lenses to choose from and various makes sizes ect
what do I need to look at with this been a full frame camera
as discriptions are confusing
any recommendations appriciated
 
Bit late to add my thoughts but here you go. MP, don't get mislead by them. The 12mp D700 will produce better images than a 24mp compact camera, and arguably better than some 24mp crop sensors. MP are useful if you're going to crop the image in post, such as with wildlife, but as you're not shooting this then cropping is not an issue. MP also help if printing HUGE.

The D700 is a great camera, being a 'pro' body it's built like a tank. IQ is excellent as is AF performance. It will be great for landscapes (as long as you don't want to print huge), great for portraits, great for sports and great for portraits. In fact great for most things.

However, before you jump into a system check the lens lineup. I'm a NIkon shooter but am 'envious' of a couple of the Canon lenses that Nikon don't do, such as the 400mm f4. Also, it's really important to check the ergonomics and the controls.

With regards to lenses, if you go the Nikon FF route you need to look at FX lenses. You can use DX lenses on FF bodies but the image circle is not big enough to cover the FF sensor so you get severe vignetting. You can use a lot of FX bodies in DX mode but this vastly reduces the MP count, and a you 'only' get 12MP with the D700 you don't want to lose too many. Sigma and Tamron do some really nice lenses too, which often are quite a bit cheaper than Nikon. The Sigma Art range is particularly good.

As for used stores, Harrisons, Wex, MPB, Camera Jungle, and London Camera Exchange are all stores I've used and been happy with. Their descriptions are usually pretty accurate, although it doesn't hurt to email for a more detailed description. Also you can find some bargains on forums like this, although you won't get any warranty (unless it's transferable).

If you're happy to buy grey then this can save you money. I would have no hesitation using Panamoz or HDEW, both of which offer very good warranties.
 
Here are my thoughts...
  1. Full frame is fine (I use it myself) but it's just not better than the APS formats any more.
  2. Pixels count. More pixels give you more data so you can crop more if required.
  3. There's more APS kit around so it's cheaper and it generally weighs a lot less than FF, though there are exceptions.
  4. CSC are coming along well so it's worth looking carefully at what's on offer. I use Micro Four Thirds and you'd be hard pressed to tell FF and MFT shots apart.
  5. The most important thing is that you're happy with the kit in your hands.
  6. Asking an internet forum what you should do was probably a bad idea to begin with. It's easier herding cats than sorting out the conflicting advice you'll get here! :thinking:
 
Sejanus Aelianus said:
Here are my thoughts...
  1. Full frame is fine (I use it myself) but it's just not better than the APS formats any more.
  2. Pixels count. More pixels give you more data so you can crop more if required.
  3. There's more APS kit around so it's cheaper and it generally weighs a lot less than FF, though there are exceptions.
  4. CSC are coming along well so it's worth looking carefully at what's on offer. I use Micro Four Thirds and you'd be hard pressed to tell FF and MFT shots apart.
  5. The most important thing is that you're happy with the kit in your hands.
  6. Asking an internet forum what you should do was probably a bad idea to begin with. It's easier herding cats than sorting out the conflicting advice you'll get here! :thinking:
Click to expand...
Sorry but I disagree with some of this. 1 is not true, there's a difference and you cannot defy physics. However, the difference is minimal in a lot of situations. Likewise with 4, this is only true in certain situations. I run both systems and with MFT you can even get noise at base ISO in decent light, I simply do not get any detectable noise at base ISO on my D750, and probably not as much until ISO 800.

Also there's the whole framing, DOF and angle of view differences to consider.
 
Last edited:
I looking to get a solid start up really
I don't wNt to be all the gear no idea type lugging stuff around that I don't need
It's an interest to me that I'll learn as I go not a profession but obviously want the best to suit my budget and requirements
So I'm looking for a couple of lenses to get me started
As I'll want to get filters ex thT all add to the cost
I'll be looking at used equipment so it's what's available as we'll
As a beginner all input is appreciated
 
Tekagudun said:
I looking to get a solid start up really
I don't wNt to be all the gear no idea type lugging stuff around that I don't need
It's an interest to me that I'll learn as I go not a profession but obviously want the best to suit my budget and requirements
So I'm looking for a couple of lenses to get me started
As I'll want to get filters ex thT all add to the cost
I'll be looking at used equipment so it's what's available as we'll
As a beginner all input is appreciated
Click to expand...
First off what do you intend on shooting and is weight/size a consideration?
 
You're moving from a point and shoot to a a dslr, not sure worrying about full frame or dx is something you should be caring about, both will be a huge jump in quality and learning curve, yes to a small extent in specific areas the full frame may have an edge, but insignificant compared to the jump from a point and shoot.
A crop sensor you will find millions of 2nd hand options at very cheap, full frame less options at more cost. Everyone will have different opinions on this.
Go and hold a few in jessops or wherever, then come and ask finer details over differences you are not sure you understand or want to mull over. Point and shoot to dslr is too big an area to allow everyone's ideas to confuse you.
 
Last edited:
Tekagudun said:
Mainly landscape
Weight not an issue
Just want to buy once really
Thanks
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was getting confused and for some reason thought you were another person hijacking the thread and now realise you've already stated this :oops: :$

The 18-35mm G is a great landscape lens, very sharp. Not sure how much they are on the used market though and whether you can get one in budget with the camera. For £900 I'm not sure you'll get a camera and two good lenses, although a used 50mm F1.8 shouldn't set you back much over £100. Another option is something like a used/grey 24-120mm f4 which can cover a lot of different types of photography, including landscapes.
 
idigitize said:
You're moving from a point and shoot to a a dslr, not sure worrying about full frame or dx is something you should be caring about, both will be a huge jump in quality and learning curve, yes to a small extent in specific areas the full frame may have an edge, but insignificant compared to the jump from a point and shoot.
A crop sensor you will find millions of 2nd hand options at very cheap, full frame less options at more cost. Everyone will have different opinions on this.
Go and hold a few in jessops or wherever, then come and ask finer details over differences you are not sure you understand or want to kill over. Point and shoot to dslr is too big an area to allow everyone's ideas to confuse you.
Click to expand...
But he said he wants to future proof and so if he's going to end up with FF in the end why start with crop body and DX lenses and then have to change them all?

Another thing from my experience is that FF files are more malleable in PP than crop, MFT etc.
 
Agree, I just wonder how many of us own our original kit from upgrading to our first serious camera. Future proofing never lasts. :) I guess buying 2nd hand to start with, you are already future proofing as far as keeping your losses down full frame or dx
 
Buying the right lenses does at least help with future-proofing a bit. I still use my crop Sony outfit for travel because it weighs half the FF Nikon kit and the Zeiss 16-80 zoom is an optically fantastic lens (less said about the mechanics the better).

If absolute image quality is a priority then I'd advise picking up a couple of used primes, say 24/28mm and 50mm for around £250-£300 the pair. If absolute detail is less of an issue and flexibility is preferred then the Nikon 28-85 AF zoom can be had for not much more than £100 at Ffordes or LCE, and that's quite versatile as a lens to start with - I'd probably pair it with a 50mm 1.8 AFD for about £70 used.
 
snerkler said:
Sorry but I disagree with some of this. 1 is not true, there's a difference and you cannot defy physics. However, the difference is minimal in a lot of situations. Likewise with 4, this is only true in certain situations. I run both systems and with MFT you can even get noise at base ISO in decent light, I simply do not get any detectable noise at base ISO on my D750, and probably not as much until ISO 800.
Click to expand...
You're free to hold your opinion but don't try to bring in "physics" because there is no technical reason why there should be any appreciable difference between the two. As to noise base, I've never noticed it in normal use and wouln't be bothered by it if I did. Before digital I used 35mm HP5 at 1600 ASA or even 3200 ASA and sold plenty of prints from that combination. If the customer is happy (these days the people I give my pictures to) I'm happy.
 
hi all
I found the camera body that I want d700
but I would like to know , hoe do I know which lens will bw compatable
I realise I need fx lenses but there isn't always this description in the menus
is there a number or code that relates to these full frame lenses
thanks
 
Tekagudun said:
hi all
I found the camera body that I want d700
but I would like to know , hoe do I know which lens will bw compatable
I realise I need fx lenses but there isn't always this description in the menus
is there a number or code that relates to these full frame lenses
thanks
Click to expand...
Nikon lenses are compatible with full frame, unless they are marked as DX.

With third party lenses the designation varies - with Sigma you need DG lenses (DC are crop sensor, DN are for Mirrorless); Tamron brand their lenses Di for full frame, Di II for crop and Di III for Mirrorless. Other brand will vary.

Older will be compatible (assuming we're talking Nikon F mount) with full frame as they were designed for 35mm film.
 
Sejanus Aelianus said:
You're free to hold your opinion but don't try to bring in "physics" because there is no technical reason why there should be any appreciable difference between the two. As to noise base, I've never noticed it in normal use and wouln't be bothered by it if I did. Before digital I used 35mm HP5 at 1600 ASA or even 3200 ASA and sold plenty of prints from that combination. If the customer is happy (these days the people I give my pictures to) I'm happy.
Click to expand...
Purely due to the enlargement factor FF will always be better. There's plenty of threads on here about it so I'll not labour the point. As a result crops put more demand on the lenses.

Noise base doesn't bother me in certain situations with MFT hence why I still use it, and I really like.

But you state about being free to hold an opinion and that's great and I reciprocate the same to you. However, all I've tried to do is clear up fact vs opinion. To say there's no difference is just not true. Whether it's negligible/appreciable or not is opinion (y)
 
Last edited:
If you can stretch a bit more, d700 body and the 16-35 f4 VR. Sorted for landscape but if you want a jack of al trade lens for a bit of everything. Get the 24-120f4 VR. I use one of these on my d3 and i'm very happy with the result.
 
snerkler said:
However, all I've tried to do is clear up fact vs opinion. To say there's no difference is just not true.
Click to expand...
You're the one confusing opinion with fact.

Whereas with film, the format completely dictates how much data can be recorded, digital sensors record the same amount of data for the same number of pixels, regardless of the sensor size, at least in the real world dimensions we're discussing. This isn't opinion, I've worked with chip designers who tell me this and I suspect they know what they're talking about. The question of noise is always raised but that's only relevant where the luminosity of the scene being recorded is low enough to require high levels of amplification and the recent families of sensor are paired to amplifiers with very low noise, making the difference between larger photo receptors and smaller ones much less than was the case a few years ago.

So far as lenses are concerned, for a given field of view, it is easier to design for a smaller format than for a larger format, simply because the angles of refraction will be less. That's 'O' level optics. Whether the lenses in practice are built to the higher standards which are possible is a different matter. As we both know, MFT cameras use firmware to "correct" lenses in their database, so there's room for things to go awry in that area.

The main reason for the full frame obsession seems to be a combination of the original desire to retain an investment in legacy lenses and the usual status conciousness that's been part of photography since the first Leica user was told by a plate camera user that "you can't get a decent shot with that little toy".

As I've said, I'm a full frame user myself (for the legacy lens reason) but I have no illusion that my smaller cameras are disadvantaged technically. The one area where the larger format does win every time is for controlled depth of field and that's a very good reason to use it. That's why I still use a Hasselblad with film.
 
so all Nikon lenses unless stated dx will be ok
that narrows the search down quite a bit
yea looking at the 24-120 f3.5-5.6 for a starting point
with a smaller prime lens
any thoughts appreciated
all prices have been around the same from second hand retailers £ 500 plus depending on number of clicks
any other recommendations?
thanks
 
Tekagudun said:
so all Nikon lenses unless stated dx will be ok
that narrows the search down quite a bit
yea looking at the 24-120 f3.5-5.6 for a starting point
with a smaller prime lens
any thoughts appreciated
Click to expand...
I recently bought a D750 second hand with the same 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 lens. That is the older version of the lens - the new 24-120 is constant f/4 but also significantly larger / heavier than the older version; some reports state it is rather soft but I've got no complaints though I don't "test" lens. I consider it very good value for money (mine was £170 bough with the body).
 
Sejanus Aelianus said:
You're the one confusing opinion with fact.

Whereas with film, the format completely dictates how much data can be recorded, digital sensors record the same amount of data for the same number of pixels, regardless of the sensor size, at least in the real world dimensions we're discussing. This isn't opinion, I've worked with chip designers who tell me this and I suspect they know what they're talking about. The question of noise is always raised but that's only relevant where the luminosity of the scene being recorded is low enough to require high levels of amplification and the recent families of sensor are paired to amplifiers with very low noise, making the difference between larger photo receptors and smaller ones much less than was the case a few years ago.

So far as lenses are concerned, for a given field of view, it is easier to design for a smaller format than for a larger format, simply because the angles of refraction will be less. That's 'O' level optics. Whether the lenses in practice are built to the higher standards which are possible is a different matter. As we both know, MFT cameras use firmware to "correct" lenses in their database, so there's room for things to go awry in that area.

The main reason for the full frame obsession seems to be a combination of the original desire to retain an investment in legacy lenses and the usual status conciousness that's been part of photography since the first Leica user was told by a plate camera user that "you can't get a decent shot with that little toy".

As I've said, I'm a full frame user myself (for the legacy lens reason) but I have no illusion that my smaller cameras are disadvantaged technically. The one area where the larger format does win every time is for controlled depth of field and that's a very good reason to use it. That's why I still use a Hasselblad with film.
Click to expand...
We'll agree to disagree then, I've seen plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise but you seem to also have decent sources (y).
 
Tekagudun said:
so all Nikon lenses unless stated dx will be ok
that narrows the search down quite a bit
yea looking at the 24-120 f3.5-5.6 for a starting point
with a smaller prime lens
any thoughts appreciated
all prices have been around the same from second hand retailers £ 500 plus depending on number of clicks
any other recommendations?
thanks
Click to expand...
The 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 isn't a great lens tbh, as mentioned by Eloise the f4 version is considerably better.
 
snerkler said:
The 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 isn't a great lens tbh, as mentioned by Eloise the f4 version is considerably better.
Click to expand...

I'll second that - I was interested in one a while back and got a couple of different shops to send some test images by email. I could not recommend that lens based on the samples I was sent, and you'll get as good image quality from a decent 3rd party superzoom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top