What camera for £1000?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JJ!
  • Start date Start date
JJ!

JJ!

Messages
5,822
Edit My Images
No
My wifes Gran recently passed away and left us some money. My lovely wife was going to buy me a new camera as a surprise but changed her mind as she didnt want to get the wrong one!

Budget is round 1k, maybe slightly over, but not by much. It has to be new.

My first thoughts are a Pentax K5 II with 18-135?

I don't really want a D7000.

What else would people recommend?

Shame the D600 is too much!!
 
That sounds like a good choice to me, only slight downside for me is it's a bit on the small side.

My hands are not that big, in fact quite small for my size, but larger cameras like the Canon 7D and Nikon D300 feel more comfortable to hold
 
Last edited:
Currently have nothing! So its starting from scratch. My friend has a K30, but the top screen on the K5 is appealing.
 
JJ! said:
Currently have nothing! So its starting from scratch. My friend has a K30, but the top screen on the K5 is appealing.
Click to expand...

Double the price appealing?

Lenses are a much better investment a £1k camera will be worth £200 in 2-3 years. Some 3yr old lenses are worth more now than when bought new 3yrs ago or if not you may loose 20-30%. Buy quility used lenses today and you will probably loose nothing if you sold them in 3yrs.
 
Last edited:
A Canon 60D + 24-105L IS is £1,098 from hdew. I know it's over £1000, but not by much and you said that was OK. :)

Or how about a 60D with 8GB memory card, 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS and 50mm 1.8 lenses, from hdew again for £825.
 
-Rob- said:
My only advise would be to stick to either Nikon or Canon. I know there are other brands out there that are more than capable but when you are looking for lenses and accessories there is just so much more choice available for the 2 leading brands.
Click to expand...

A little unfair i think. There is more than enough Pentax and Sony/Minolta lenses available too. Not to mention Sigma and Tamron lenses. How many lenses do one person possible need?
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
A little unfair i think. There is more than enough Pentax and Sony/Minolta lenses available too. Not to mention Sigma and Tamron lenses. How many lenses do one person possible need?
Click to expand...

Tend to agree. Not everybody needs 10 lenses and in fact the OP seems to be swaying towards an all round lens.

If buying new the lens choice is good for Sony and Pentax too but if buying used they come up less often so not sure what that does to prices.
 
Canon 7D and if you can get something more as a lens then Canon 28-135L, or Sigma equivalent one, otherwise go with Canon 50mm 1.4USM and it will give you great time to which focal length with zoom you want go with next, if that is also expensive then check out Sigma 35mm or 30mm 1.4 models, many cheap zooms are not on par, and if you don't have enough budget left after getting the body then you can't get even the best cheaper lens as zoom you want.

Good luck!
 
I went from a K7 (which has the same body as the K5) to a K-30 and I'm definitely not missing the top LCD. The extra money you could spend on glass is definitely a better investment considering the sensors are identical in the two cameras. Main downside is if you are very into video as the K-30 has no external mike input. I bought it for stills, so really don't mind and have used it to capture some small videos of my son and it's been fine.

£630 for the body and an 18-135 after Pentax £50 cashback (and get it from SRS for a free battery and 2 year warranty) would leave you with £370 for lenses. One good one would be the Sigma 30mm f1.8 from SRS who are doing it at a bargain £250 at the moment. Then you've enough money for a flash or tripod. Well worth the investment.
 
ernesto said:
Tend to agree. Not everybody needs 10 lenses and in fact the OP seems to be swaying towards an all round lens.
Click to expand...

My comment was nothing to do with the range of lenses available but more to do with the quantity available on the second hand market. The OP may insist on buying new now but if they get more in to photography then there is a good chance they'll want to buy more kit and the best way to do that is to buy second hand on here or eBay and there is just far more Canon & Nikon kit available than any other brand.
 
Panasonic G5 with 14-140 or 12-35 if you wanted a better quality but covers less zoom.

The lens lineup in micro 4/3 is as good as full frame SLR, but 1/3 or less the size and weight and cheaper. Image quality is just as good as APS-C DSLRs and the ergonomics is waaaay better.

I sold a Canon 5D2 and 4 L lenses to move to micro 4/3rds. No regrets - and I know a number of others who have done exactly the same.

I think APS-C sized sensor days are limited and most people don't have the need for full frame (they may have the desire, but not the need) and micro 4/3 has significant weight and cost advantages when you want anything other than kit lenses.
 
-Rob- said:
My comment was nothing to do with the range of lenses available but more to do with the quantity available on the second hand market. The OP may insist on buying new now but if they get more in to photography then there is a good chance they'll want to buy more kit and the best way to do that is to buy second hand on here or eBay and there is just far more Canon & Nikon kit available than any other brand.
Click to expand...

Yes, I conceded that in my second line which you didn't include in yoru quote!
 
If you are into birding or similar and at some stage will need long, fast glass, along with lightening quick AF then go for Canon or Nikon.

If you don't need the above, then IMHO the K5 cannot be beaten in your price range. Having said that I don't use the top LCD on my K5 and the K30 is fantastic value for money.


As for buying other lenses, there are plenty to be had, both new and used. Quite a few Canon users like to stick the Pentax primes on their bodies using adapters
 
daugirdas said:
plenty of FF (used) for that price or at least get better glass. 18-135 screams cheap and soft
Click to expand...
Depends what you want. Sharp in the centre wide open, which is where you need it to be sharp wide open. Stop it down to get increased sharpness in the corners.

Mine is always in my bag, so I know I always have a weather sealed option.

Edit: If you don't need WR (weather resistant) then the 17-70 is very well regarded for a standard zoom, and may still come in on price.
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
The lens lineup in micro 4/3 is as good as full frame SLR, but 1/3 or less the size and weight and cheaper. Image quality is just as good as APS-C DSLRs and the ergonomics is waaaay better.
Click to expand...

I was doing some internet window shopping on m43 and only found one fast standard zoom? Not a dig, but was surprised. Also cost seems to be greater for some lenses, eg wide angle 7-5 is around 5-600 used, a 10-20 on apsc could be had for 250. There may be some lenses with prices the other way round!
 
Rapscallion said:
I was doing some internet window shopping on m43 and only found one fast standard zoom? Not a dig, but was surprised. Also cost seems to be greater for some lenses, eg wide angle 7-5 is around 5-600 used, a 10-20 on apsc could be had for 250. There may be some lenses with prices the other way round!
Click to expand...
You have 7-14 f4, better and wider than the 17-40 for full frame at a little more expensive new (so yes, more than the 10-20), or 9-18 from Olympus that is cheaper but not as wide. For quality zooms you have the 12-35 f2.8 (17-55/24-70 equiv.), and 35-100 f2.8 (70-200 f2.8 equiv.) so you are covered at f2.8 out to 200mm full frame equivalent with "pro" lenses. There are a host of cheaper non "pro" style lenses which cover 95% of what people will want.

You want to go longer, try the 100-300 (200-600mm equivalent). OK, it's only f5.6 BUT it costs <£400. Show me a 400mm lens on a Canon/Nikon which costs that... the lens choice is very diverse with micro 4/3rds due to two manufacturers working to a fixed spec. and people like Sigma now providing lenses for the system. In fact, I think at last count, there were close to 30 micro 4/3rds lenses available including some f0.95 manual focus lenses (if that's what floats your boat).

The manufacturer "pro" micro 4/3rds lenses are sharper, cheaper and waaaay smaller than the Canon/Nikon equivalents (the 75mm Oly is claimed by many test sites to be the sharpest lens they have - tested period). The 12-35 and 35-100 are as good on a smaller sensor as the Canon/Nikon equivalents are on a full frame and they are sharper than the Canon/Nikon lenses are on APS-C (the decent FF lenses are designed to be decent on full frame which has a bigger sensor so perform less well on smaller sensor cameras). They are also built very well.

I have a 7-14, 12-35, 35-100 (which is tiny!) and a G5. I bought all new, and still have significant change from trading in my 5D2/L lenses which were sold second hand. I can also carry all of them around in a bag smaller than one that held the 5D2/24-105 alone, let alone adding the 17-40 or 70-200 in. I have more range, the camera/lens combos take better pictures and I only have 1.9kg including the bag (just weighed them) to carry around. Try doing that with the Canon/Nikon equivalents (i.e. 24-70/70-200 f2.8s).

The only areas where SLRs work out better are at focus tracking (this will change soon - for static subjects u4/3rds are better than SLRs as the focus is taken off the chip) and if you want very fast long lenses (although Panny are bringing out a fast 150mm next year which will be 300mm equivalent).

I really, truly, believe that DSLRs have limited applicability now. The growth will be in the mirrorless cameras and not the DSLRs. I would advise anyone getting into serious photography to start with micro 4/3rds as you can always do with a small, decent camera for taking out and about even if you decide to go DSLR at a later date.
 
arad85 said:
I can also carry all of them around in a bag smaller than one that held the 5D2/24-105 alone
Click to expand...

My G3 + 20mm lens fits in my (winter down) jacket pocket - okay that's the only jacket I have with a pocket it fits in, but still handy in the wintry weather and no way a dslr would fit in there. :)

But I still think dslrs will dominate for some time to come though - after all 95% of the threads on this section of the forum are not only dslr dominated but Canon and Nikon dominated.

And my Olympus 45mm f1.8 still cost me over 3 times as much (£230) as the 50mm 1.8 for my dslr/slt (£70) - so at the budget end of the market anyway you are going to be able to pick up a dslr and 2 or 3 primes for less than the equivalent m43 gear. If you want a built in viewfinder, the cheapest current model m43 camera (G5) is still more expensive than the cheapest entry level dslrs. This would need to change in order for m43 to become mainstream, as would the widespread perception that if you want a 'better' camera than a compact then you buy a Nikon or a Canon dslr. :)
 
A second hand 5D MkII can be had for less than a grand now.
 
applemint said:
And my Olympus 45mm f1.8 still cost me over 3 times as much (£230) as the 50mm 1.8 for my dslr/slt (£70)
Click to expand...
But the 45mm is 90mm FF equivalent where you're into Canon 85mm at £300... The 50mm 1.8 is the exception though ;)

applemint said:
If you want a built in viewfinder, the cheapest current model m43 camera (G5) is still more expensive than the cheapest entry level dslrs. This would need to change in order for m43 to become mainstream, as would the widespread perception that if you want a 'better' camera than a compact then you buy a Nikon or a Canon dslr. :)
Click to expand...
It will happen.....
 
daugirdas said:
Time to buy it back :) Mr Clever
Click to expand...
No. Not on your nellie... The G5 with lenses I have gives me better pictures.... :) I haven't regretted selling up once.
 
If you really wanted a larger body and top LCD what about the original K-5? they still seem to be in stock in alot of places and are down to £550ish.

As has been said though the main thing to consider is the lenses you might want. If you don't have a good idea of that my suggestion would be to buy an 18-55mm WR with the camera and keep the rest of the money in reserve for a future purchase/s.
 
I had a D7000 before I had to sell up for financial reasons - I didnt really get on with it as found the handgrip not right for me.

I can't go 2nd hand as the wife is buying this for me and she wants to buy something new.

As for lenses, all I am looking for is 1 or 2 lenses to cover a nice range and a prime.
 
JJ! said:
I had a D7000 before I had to sell up for financial reasons - I didnt really get on with it as found the handgrip not right for me.

I can't go 2nd hand as the wife is buying this for me and she wants to buy something new.

As for lenses, all I am looking for is 1 or 2 lenses to cover a nice range and a prime.
Click to expand...

What kind of performance do you want out of the lenses?

Looking at net reviews it seems to me that the 18-135mm is a solid performer up to 50-60mm and only sharp in the center beyond that plus of course its only f5.6 at the long end.
 
Thinking of going down the Pentax K5 route myself, and as per a previous reply by the member above, don't screw your nose up at a pre-owned K5, with extra funds to allow for filters, tripod, pre-owned Ltd Pentax glass, and a good bag to carry and protect it all.
Whilst there's some nice new aspects to the K5 II and IIs, the outgoing original is still a very well respected performer in absolute terms, not just "for a two year old design".

And I would also add that you don't need to blow through all the money in one go - keep some aside for a lens you might like to acquire further down the line.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top