About to finally buy a camera, come, stop me making a mistake!

[Djw John]

Right, after quite of lot of searching, researching and asking some friends who all have different opinions of what I should buy I thought I should check with others that I'm buying the right thing!

Budget is circa £600 (and I really can't go very much over this at all, cheaper is better)

Use will be normal day to day photography, landscapes, motorsport, static cars.

My level is long term point and shoot user at a basic level, used to take a lot more photos before my trusty kyocera died a few years back, recent cameras have been crap, hence my uncertainty and worry about buying a dud.

I've been looking at Nikons based on advice, popularity and others opinions.

I feel a 18-55mm probably won't be enough for my needs but found this from John Lewis

http://www.johnlewis.com/nikon-d510...s-hd-1080p-16-2mp-3x-zoom-3-screen/p231656718 for £640 which is the absolute maximum I can pay for one.

However, I have also found a D5100 but with just the 18-55mm from currys for £420 and could add in a 17-300mm Sigma lens for £150 so a total of £570. Obviously quite a saving and would let me buy the other essentials needed for less than the JL deal. However, would missing the 55-70mm range cause issues? Is the Sigma lens any good?

Anything obvious I'm missing? Heid is mince now tbh!

Thanks
John

 

[.GAZ.]

John, I think someone has hacked your CS account.

 

[Djw John]

Flol, it was my birthday, I got money. I'm not to spend it on cars.


Also Gaz, you seem to be a forum pauper, get it sorted.

 

[TheEvilGiraffe]

Firstly, go into Currys etc. and handle the cameras. I found 2 in my budget, got on with the Canon quite well, all seemed quite logical and simple - couldn't begin to understand the Nikon as it seemed very confusing to a noob compared to the other one.

Find a few cameras in your budget and go from there. Look at second hand bodies too .. 40D/50D Canons are very reasonable now and you'll have more money left over for; Glass (lenses) which are more important than the body - to an extent...

Also, don't get a 17-300 .. it will be awful at 300mm (soft as cheese) and slow and wallowy at 17mm. Friend has one and it's simply dreadful at anything.

:evil:

 

[Djw John]

Sorry that should be 70-300 not 17! Still to be avoided?

I've lifted up a few Nikons and Canons but tbf none have actually been switched on so I haven't used the menus yet.

I take it the bodies are reliable enough to not worry about buying second hand too much?

Thanks for advice TEG

 

[TheEvilGiraffe]

Yes you'll get 100's of 1,000's of shots out of a sensor. If it looks knackered, avoid. Just like buying cars - buy on condition not milage

As for 70-300's .. depends what it is .. but that should be much better than a 17-300 haha ! Again, like cars (or anything), buying cheap isn't always a good idea....

I'd not bother with a zoom until you're settled. You may find you don't actually need one.. but if you do.. I picked up a 70-200L f/4 on here for ~350ish second hand .. it would blow your £150 Sigma out of the water

 

[Djw John]

Was this one http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/sigma-...lephoto-zoom-lens-for-nikon-01565856-pdt.html

I'd hope it would blow it out the water for £200 more second hand!

I'll start having a look around for second hand stuff then, I must admit I haven't before. I'd have no problem buying a £600 car but £600 on a camera is making me nervous!

 

[TheEvilGiraffe]

I'm just saying for a little more pocket money, you can up your game seriously

That lense looks fine. Nothing wrong with Sigma .. my favourite lense is my 10-20mm Sigma UWA !!

Just buy a body, if it comes with a kit lense, use that for a while and see how you get on. If you need more length (ooh err...) get a zoom.... if you want to go wider or faster look into other options.

Word of warning .. spending a few hundred now will turn into thousands in a few years :rasp:

 

[.GAZ.]

Forum abuser FTW.

 

[Gally]

I'm surprised Rob's first response wasn't "why are you spending £600 when you're at basic level?"

If you can't take pictures a £600 camera won't help imo. Why not buy a nice 2nd Dslr off Ebay. Maybe 450D or something similar and practice without the worry of breaking or spending £600 on a camera to not get the best out of it.

Dan could probably get better shots with a point and shoot Lumix than I could with a £600 camera.

I'm not saying you don't know how to use a camera but diminishing returns must come in somewhere between talent and equipment.

 

[TheEvilGiraffe]

I said look at second hand bodies. There's always old ones cropping up (no pun intended) on the for sale board at work ( >2k nerdy blokes on one site ) .. I got Ant a 400D body for £110 the other day and there was a 40D for about £125 not long ago.

450D is always a good start IMO, but it's been said about eleventynine times on here since Christmas

 

[The Chubby Pirate]

John, I think someone has hacked your CS account.

Like that time someone hacked your facebook

 

[Gally]

450D was just a random number mate. . Knew 350 was a tad dated now.

 

[Djw John]

I know what you're saying Kev but I believe my current camera is really poor, it just doesn't cope with indoor or outdoor conditions well at all and doesn't have the functionality I want so its going regardless. Also I don't think I'm bad at taking pics, but I know that I can improve a lot as well, having equipment that can cope with what I want it to will only help my enthusiasm for it. I know bridge cameras are fairly common but I'd rather go for the real deal rather than one of them.

I dont really want to spend £600, less would be much better so I will look into second hand stuff. Its hugely tempting to just throw it into the track car but I'd best not!

 

[koi]

Go slightly older model and 2nd hand mate, plenty of decent bargains to be had. Stick with the kit lens for a while and then buy some decent lens with the money left over when you know what range you need.

 

[TheEvilGiraffe]

Without looking too hard .. for example http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EOS-40D-10-1-MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-Black-Body-Only-/271168367835 Seems OK to me....

Little more money, but a newer body .. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EOS...ate-condition-low-shutter-count-/281074297968

 

[GBH14]

A few months before Christmas I took the plunge and bought my first camera. I went second hand and paid just under £300 for a d3100 18-55mm kit lens, 70-300 tamron, tripod, lowepro bags/cases for body and lenses, and UV filters. I don't think I did too badly but in hindsight I wish I had saved a bit of cash and just got a 2nd hand body and kit lens until I knew what I wanted!

I only say this because since owning it I find I use the zoom lens very rarely and would actually rather have a 10-20mm instead! So my advice is similar to post #8.. Just key a body and kit lens until you know what you want and you know your into it.

 

[Clart]

Buy my d40

 

[Ben10]

John, I just bought a Nikon D5100 last week 2nd hand (6 Months old) for £430. It came with a Nikon 17-70mm lens and a Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens. The first one has a slightly better zoom than the kit lens but is a nice piece of kit. The 50mm (nifty fifty) is absolutely fantastic if I'm honest!!
When I added up how much I would pay for all of that brand new I was reaching the £600 mark.

I was in the same quandary as you with the same budget and ended up going 2nd hand Nikon. My dad has the Canon 600D and I must admit I was changing my mind every day between Nikon and Canon but I went for Nikon in the end and have directly compared it to my dad's and I am very happy with mine.
PM me if you want to chat some more and I will give you a few sites that helped me make my decision

 

[koi]

John, I just bought a Nikon D5100 last week 2nd hand (6 Months old) for £430. It came with a Nikon 17-70mm lens and a Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens. The first one has a slightly better zoom than the kit lens but is a nice piece of kit. The 50mm (nifty fifty) is absolutely fantastic if I'm honest!!
When I added up how much I would pay for all of that brand new I was reaching the £600 mark.

I was in the same quandary as you with the same budget and ended up going 2nd hand Nikon. My dad has the Canon 600D and I must admit I was changing my mind every day between Nikon and Canon but I went for Nikon in the end and have directly compared it to my dad's and I am very happy with mine.
PM me if you want to chat some more and I will give you a few sites that helped me make my decision

Why not buy a Canon then steal your dads lenses?

 

[MikeoftheQuays]

Without looking too hard .. for example http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EOS-40D-10-1-MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-Black-Body-Only-/271168367835 Seems OK to me....

A used 40D is an astonishing bargain these days. All the camera you could ever need for £250!

 

[Ben10]

He only has 1 all purpose lens. More chance of him nicking mine!!

 

[Hixle]

Buy my d40

I'd also agree with this. The D40 is a PERFECT beginner DSLR, plus at the price Clart is selling it at you could afford to have it for a year and sell it if/when you decide to upgrade and lose no money.

The only thing that limits the D40 against newer entry level Nikon's is the way it handles ISO.

 

[Adam.]

D40 is epic to start with John, it's what I used. Here's a picture straight from the camera using the standard kit.

Leon by Adam, on Flickr

 

[Hixle]

I was going back through some of my pics from when I went to Dubai a couple of years ago, armed with a D40, kit lens and 55-200. I'm now scared that when I go back in 2 weeks with all my newer gear that my pictures won't be as good, lol!

Awesome camera for the price

 

[Cup_Phil]

I would NEVER buy an entry level D40 over a 2nd hand Canon 50D if I wanted to do motorsport photography

The 50D is metal bodied, very robust, fast auto-focus
The D40 does a shitty 2.5 shots per second where the 50D will do 6.3 shots per second

That matters when you're out taking photos of a rally stage.

You can pick up a 50D for about £300-350 body only. Grab a 50mm f1.8 for £60 off ebay then a 55-250 IS to get you started.
Can always upgrade to a 70-200 f4 later on.

 

[Clart]

Why are you even comparing the 2? D40 body £100, 50D body £300 - or course its going to be better!

 

[Cup_Phil]

I didn't say they were the same money - I said I would never buy a D40 over a 50D even if it does mean saving £150

He's got a £600 budget so why buy something as s**t as a D40?

Plus the nikon budget bodies with no AF motor just sting you with expensive lens prices. The 50mm f1.8 is a fantastic lens and it's £60

 

[Gally]

Lols still not fair comparing Phil, we're loking at entry level to save money and get some practice in with.

 

[Cup_Phil]

There's no point if he's listed "motorsport" as something he wants to take photos of

Trust me a D40 with a budget lens trying to shoot something that's moving will be the most frustrating thing ever.
There's nothing more de-motivating than going home with a memory card full of blurred photos

 

[Hixle]

If you're new to photography, you're going to get pretty much the same results from a £200 setup as you are from a £2000 one, as you don't know how to exploit the features well enough to make use of them.

The D40 isn't a 's**t' camera, basic yes, but far from s**t. And coming from a P&S, I think a basic setup to get used to the ergonomics of an SLR is what you need, IMO as it's all to easy to become a bit overwhelmed by them in the first place.

 

[Hixle]

If you're shooting motorsport and getting blurry pictures, even with a basic setup, that's a problem with the tog rather than camera.

 

[Clart]

There's no point if he's listed "motorsport" as something he wants to take photos of

Trust me a D40 with a budget lens trying to shoot something that's moving will be the most frustrating thing ever.
There's nothing more de-motivating than going home with a memory card full of blurred photos

i have plenty of decent motorsport photos with the D40. You must be s**t.

 

[Cup_Phil]

If you're new to photography, you're going to get pretty much the same results from a £200 setup as you are from a £2000 one, as you don't know how to exploit the features well enough to make use of them.

If you're shooting motorsport and getting blurry pictures, even with a basic setup, that's a problem with the tog rather than camera.

So auto-focus motor speed has nothing to do with tracking a moving target?
Nonsense - I know pro photographers that if I gave them a 40mm STM lens on a 1000D wouldn't be able to get a single decent shot of a moving touring car.

If you're an amateur you will get much better results from a camera with a high shutter rate and fast AF motor than you will with a slow rate and slow AF motor.
It takes a lot of skill & experience to compensate for a laggy camera.

If we were talking purely static shots I'd agree that it's best to start cheap and learn the features and settings - but motorsport photography is a different ball game

 

[Cup_Phil]

i have plenty of decent motorsport photos with the D40. You must be s**t.

No offense mate but you're saying that because you're selling a D40 at the moment

This... is not a good motorsport shot

The shutter speed is too fast, there is no motion in the picture. It looks like someone has parked their porsche and gone for a cup of tea.

Do you have any panning shots taken with a D40 where you didn't have to bin 90% of them to get a good one?

 

[Hixle]

So auto-focus motor speed has nothing to do with tracking a moving target?
Nonsense - I know pro photographers that if I gave them a 40mm STM lens on a 1000D wouldn't be able to get a single decent shot of a moving touring car.

I'd seriously consider another career, if they couldn't. I never had any issues with motorsport when I had my D40 tbh. Granted, a camera with a faster AF motor would possibly result in more keepers, but the way you're going on about it is making it sound like it's impossible to get a decent shot. It's not.

If you're an amateur you will get much better results from a camera with a high shutter rate and fast AF motor than you will with a slow rate and slow AF motor.
It takes a lot of skill & experience to compensate for a laggy camera.

All the better then IMO. It will teach you how to use a camera, rather than having the gear do all the work. Plus, when you upgrade you'll appreciate it far more!

 

[JJ!]

No need to start on someone's photos TBH!

Had no probs with motion with my old D40.

Although in going to break the mould here an say pentax k30 with 18-55 and 50-200. Under budget, good ISO performance, 6fps, weather sealed and lots more than your average entry level.

Just check reviews to see how good its rated.

It will not be a popular choice on here but I am starting to love pentax! You can get some incredible pancake lenses and use so many old film era lenses too.

 

[Cup_Phil]

No need to start on someone's photos TBH!

I think the "you must be s**t" comment was enough need to be honest.
I'm no expert but I've had 6 different cameras and over 20 different lenses over the last 5 years and taken a lot of motorsport shots from drifting, to BTCC to just average trackdays. Being told I'm s**t because I have an opinion is a bit below the belt.

 

[Djw John]

Well this thread kicked back to life today I see!

I've just bought Clarts D40 and lens. Based on its a good starter kit, I won't lose any money on it and it gives me more money to waste on the caged shell!

Thanks for all the advice whichever way you went, I'm sure I'll refer back to it in the future.

 

[Cup_Phil]

Ahhhhhhhh so that explains the aggressive response lol