# First Dslr Advice



## scoobie232 (Dec 31, 2008)

Hi,

I'm pushing towards the jump into the world of DSLR photography and having had only pocket cameras up till this point I'm a little bemused as to what i should buy as my first proper camera something that's novice friendly,

I should probably tell you what it would be used for, primarily family occasions, motorcycle paddock shots and slow moving Trials shots, some watch close ups perhaps  that's probably plenty to begin with,

I'm almost certainly talking used/second hand as i have a budget all in of about Â£200 a bit more maybe at a push,

Any comments or advice would be most welcome.

H..


----------



## Robert (Jul 26, 2006)

I had a DSLR but realised it was wasted on me. Rather than learning how to us it properly I replaced it with what they call a bridge camera - Panasonic FZ28. 10mp, 18x optical zoom, macro etc etc. Not too far above your budget to get a new one these days.


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

For that budget, you really will be at the lower end of the last couple of generations of cameras.

You might just pick up a nice used Nikon D40, which although are now a few years old, are still very capable cameras. You may be lucky to find a deal on ebay with a few lenses included, although they wont be particulary good ones.

I think with Â£200 though, you really will struggle.

Even the Nikon D50 (which is older than the D40 despite its higher number) is still selling used well over Â£250. I bought one brand new about 4 years ago for that kind of money, so you can see how well they hold value. I bought a brand new Nikon D700 for Â£1400 late last year and sold it for Â£1650 a few months later!!

I only use Nikon, so I wont comment on canon as I have no experience with them or any other brand, but look out for a used D40 or D50 and you wont go far wrong. Lenses are a whole different ball game. The more you pay, the better the lens. Doesnt matter what body you have, if the glass in front of it is rubbish, then so will the image quality.

There was a D40 for sale on here for an excellent price last week, but I think you missed it!


----------



## scoobie232 (Dec 31, 2008)

Thanks for the advice Guys,

It really is something to learn the ropes with I'm looking for the D40 has been mentioned before to me so i'll keep an eye out, e-bay not really an option, too many scammers coupled with my inexperience with DSLR a bad combination

I saw a Nikon D80 with a Tamron AF LD 28-200 lens for about Â£300 but haven't heard much about either, any thoughts ?


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

scoobie232 said:


> Thanks for the advice Guys,
> 
> It really is something to learn the ropes with I'm looking for the D40 has been mentioned before to me so i'll keep an eye out, e-bay not really an option, too many scammers coupled with my inexperience with DSLR a bad combination
> 
> I saw a Nikon D80 with a Tamron AF LD 28-200 lens for about Â£300 but haven't heard much about either, any thoughts ?


D80 is a fine camera, but older than the D40. Has better features though. Its more of an intermediate level than the beginner D40.

Tamron have varying quality lenses. Some are fantastic, some arent so good. I've never used the 28-200, but I would imagine its a fairly standard budget zoom. Will certainly do the job, but it wont be outstanding. At your level thoug, its probably perfectly acceptable. Its only when you pixel peep that you notice anyhting untoward.


----------



## scoobie232 (Dec 31, 2008)

Thanks Tom,

Think i'll hold off for a d40 or similar.

H..


----------



## scoobie232 (Dec 31, 2008)

Thanks for all your thoughts and advice guys, I completed a deal for a Nikon D60 kit last night :clap: so looking forward to its arrival in a few days.

H.. :cheers:


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

Great choice... Now start saving for all those lovely lenses and more expensive bodies!! :drool:


----------



## mav (Sep 11, 2009)

Now you have the camera .....save up for the glass and enjoy shooting

Good choice BTW


----------



## chris_s (Sep 13, 2009)

Re-awakened my interest in photography a while back with a D70. Wanted to move into wildlife photos, so went mad and bought an F2.8 300mm the 2x convertor - effective focal length allowing for sensor size over 35mm is a huge 900mm.

Takes great photos, but it's heavy amd sadly I'm not using it as much as I'd like. Might even consider trading or selling to fund a watch if anybody wants a fast, long, prime.

Any of the entry range Nikons make great sense, so much more control over point and shoot


----------



## Padders (Oct 21, 2008)

Nikons DSLRs are great and any one of them will give you results head and shoulders better than a bridge camera or similar. You will spend the next year or so developing lens envy. A word of advice, avoid the 28-200 range mentioned above as on a 1.5x crop camera the short end of that type of lens becomes equivalent to 42mm which is not remotley wide. One of the various 18-xx mm lenses are a much better range to walk about with. Assuming you got a 18-55mm with the D60 then for longer stuff maybe think about a 55-200mm VR which is a fantastic tele zoom for the money or if you want to splash out the 18-105mm is a more capable walkabout option.

Cheers


----------



## smartidog (Feb 28, 2009)

good luck scoobie, i am stuck between the d60 and a canon eos450d at the moment,

decisions.....decisions!!!!


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

smartidog said:


> good luck scoobie, i am stuck between the d60 and a canon eos450d at the moment,
> 
> decisions.....decisions!!!!


*cough* D60 *cough*


----------



## smartidog (Feb 28, 2009)

hi tom

sometimes i hate the internet, just had the sony a350 thrown into the mix!!

highly rated on the photographyblog.com know you are a nikon fan, any thoughts?

hope you get that nasty cough sorted out,lol.

jon


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

I have never used one, but as far as I am aware, they are good value for money. The sensors on Nikons are derrived from Sony, so the image quality should be similar. The things I love about Nikon are the ease of use of the menu systems and the shear ammount of lenses avaiable both from Nikon and 3rd party makers like Sigma.

With the Sony, you might be a bit more limited in what you can find. As for the Sony's user interface, I have never seen it, so couldnt fairly comment.

There is a very indepth review here, also has a lot of reviews of cameras in the same sort of range.


----------



## smartidog (Feb 28, 2009)

Thanks Tom,

Well somehow don't think its in quite the same league as the canon or nikon

got a feeling i may join the nikon mob but see what come on offer.

Good site though Tom but, the words opened, can, and worms, come to mind.

cheers again Tom

jon webb


----------



## Padders (Oct 21, 2008)

If you can afford it the Canon 500D is an amazing piece of kit for an entry level model and I speak as a Nikon devotee. I personally don't see any great differences between the other low end Canon and Nikon models as the 400D, 450D, 1000D, D60, D3000 are much of a muchness. If you fancy one of those you may as well choose based on the lenses you intend to deploy. At the next level up Nikon edge ahead as the D5000 and d90 are superior to the Canon alternatives. All IMO of course.

Padders



smartidog said:


> Thanks Tom,
> 
> Well somehow don't think its in quite the same league as the canon or nikon
> 
> ...


----------



## smartidog (Feb 28, 2009)

Padders said:


> If you can afford it the Canon 500D is an amazing piece of kit for an entry level model and I speak as a Nikon devotee. I personally don't see any great differences between the other low end Canon and Nikon models as the 400D, 450D, 1000D, D60, D3000 are much of a muchness. If you fancy one of those you may as well choose based on the lenses you intend to deploy. At the next level up Nikon edge ahead as the D5000 and d90 are superior to the Canon alternatives. All IMO of course.
> 
> Padders
> 
> ...


Thanks Padders,

Silly me, thought it may be easy to upgrade to a dslr from my bridge camera (panasonic fz8),

thought i may go for a d40,about Â£200, but not any more pixels than i have. so you then get onto d40x, d60,

eos 450d, 500d, etc nearly double the money, ok as long as i am going to make enough use of it!

cheers

smartidog


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

Dont get drawn into the megapixles race. A DSLR with 6 MP is more than enough for anyone, unless you plan on printing to A3 or above. A DSLR with 6MP will produce better images than a Bridge camera with 10, simply because the DSLR will have a bigger sensor and better dynamic range.

In fact, sometimes it can actualy be a downside to have higher mega pixles. My D700 had a full frame 12.1MP sensor and the full quality files were over 50MB each on the computer. Thats a lot of MB for a picture, and most computer hard drives will fill up pretty soon.

My d90 has a 12.3 MP DX CMOS sensor, which is smaller in pyshical size than the D700's. Even though the number is bigger, the picture file sizes are actually smaller at around 30MB

Imagine what a 21.MP camera file size would be!

In a DX size sensor, anymore than 12MP seems a waste, as the sensor is just not big enough to cope with all the information, meaning you get noiser pictures than you would from a 10MP camera. Sadly, a lot of manufactures know that people think, bigger is better, and therefore cram as many MP's into their cameras as they can, knowing that people will think it must be better, when quite often its actualy sacrificing image quality to get there.


----------



## scoobie232 (Dec 31, 2008)

scoobie232 said:


> Thanks for all your thoughts and advice guys, I completed a deal for a Nikon D60 kit last night, so looking forward to its arrival in a few days.
> 
> H.. :cheers:


Essential extras

:clap: I now have my Nikon D60 kit and spent most of the weekend reading over the instructions and getting a feel for it, First impressions are fantastic, the picture quality and ease of use are exiting to say the least, but the kit alone is fairly basic -

body, lens, strap, battery and charger, software, leads, lens caps and covers.

Apart from an SD card what in your opinion are the Essential extras I should be looking to attain in the very near future ?

Thanks as always

H..


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

A good tripod and remote release will be essential for watch shots. Then a external flash unit and macro lens. I'd reccomend getting a rocket blower to blow any dust from the sensor too.

Spare batteries are always useful also.


----------



## scoobie232 (Dec 31, 2008)

Having now spent some quality time with my D60 I feel happy in saying I made the right choice for me, there's hardly a day gone past since its arrival that i don't pick it up at some point and take some shots,

At the weekends I attend and often ride in Classic Motocross and trials events but for this I find I'm lacking in focal length as you cant always get close enough with the kit lens.

I have decided pretty much on a used Nikon 55-200mm vr and have placed an add accordingly in the WTB section of this forum.

I would be grateful as always for your views on this choice and any other suggestions of lenses as or more suitable for my usage.

H..


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

The Nikon 70-300VR lens is stunning for the money. I have owned the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR which many consider one of the finest Nikon lenses ever made, and to honest, I actually prefer the 70-300 even though its quater of the price. Ok, it wont do low light light the 70-200 will, but is a lot lighter, has longer reach and doesnt feel as precious as the Â£1200 or more 70-200.

You may find even 200mm still a little to short. The price of the 55-200 suggests its a budget grade lens, so whilst it will do the job, it wont be great. The 70-300 is more of a prosumer lens, not quite budget, not quite pro, but its very well built and very well regarded.

The Sigma 70-300 OS is also supposed to be good.

If you do plump for a 70-300, make sure you get the right version, either the Nikon VR or Sigma OS, as they both do 70-300mm lenses in the budget range that arent particualy good. I have owned the Nikon 70-300 basic version too, and sold it soon after as it just wasnt sharp enoough even for me.


----------



## Padders (Oct 21, 2008)

Tom Radford said:


> The Nikon 70-300VR lens is stunning for the money. I have owned the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR which many consider one of the finest Nikon lenses ever made, and to honest, I actually prefer the 70-300 even though its quater of the price. Ok, it wont do low light light the 70-200 will, but is a lot lighter, has longer reach and doesnt feel as precious as the Â£1200 or more 70-200.
> 
> You may find even 200mm still a little to short. The price of the 55-200 suggests its a budget grade lens, so whilst it will do the job, it wont be great. The 70-300 is more of a prosumer lens, not quite budget, not quite pro, but its very well built and very well regarded.
> 
> ...


You may consider that the price of the 55-200mm vr suggests it is budget but its performance certainly does not. It is sharp across the picture, weighs nothing compared to the FX 70-300mm and balances very well on the smaller D40/60 bodies. Granted the VR system used is not as sophisticated as the VRII used in the larger tele-zoom but you can still hand hold it everywhere. The 55-200mm certainly outperforms the 18-200 in their common range and IMO is the equal of the 70-300mm VR where they cross over too so it a bit of a no brainer IMO.


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

Padders said:


> Tom Radford said:
> 
> 
> > The Nikon 70-300VR lens is stunning for the money. I have owned the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR which many consider one of the finest Nikon lenses ever made, and to honest, I actually prefer the 70-300 even though its quater of the price. Ok, it wont do low light light the 70-200 will, but is a lot lighter, has longer reach and doesnt feel as precious as the Â£1200 or more 70-200.
> ...


I only went by price. I have never used one or looked into them. Just read the reveiws on Fred Miranda, and yes it scores very highly, so it seems a good deal for that money. There are a few Nikon gems like that. The 50mm f/1.8 being another. Stupidly low priced for fantastic glass.

Guess its down to how much the OP wants to pay, and how much reach he wants. Looks like he wont go wrong with either the 55-200 or 70-300.


----------



## outstretchedhands (May 29, 2008)

I sold my lightly used D40 for about Â£200 a few months back so they are available.


----------



## Guest (Oct 29, 2009)

Interesting regarding the Nikon zooms. Really fancy the 70-200VR but I have been tempted to try one of the cheaper versions or the non vr Nikon.


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

There is a new version of the 70-200 vr just been released, so you might find a good second hand old one now. They are still a lot of money, but worth it if the kind of shooting you do demands quality glass.


----------



## scoobie232 (Dec 31, 2008)

Thanks guys for all your input so far, :thumbsup:

As much as i would love to go for the Nikon 70-300 vr price is pretty much dictating that at this time i try and pick up a used Nikon 55-200 vr which going by the reviews and peoples comments is an extremely good lens for the money,

I was checking the prices new and they cost more now than they did last year 

H..


----------



## Stuart Davies (Jan 13, 2008)

Huw - I use a Canon 300D (first generation DSLR) which I bought from new and I can't fault it. It's only 5 mp but that is all I will ever need as I don't print larger than A3. There are plenty about and you can pick them up for less than Â£200 these days.


----------



## Stuart Davies (Jan 13, 2008)

Stuart Davies said:


> Huw - I use a Canon 300D (first generation DSLR) which I bought from new and I can't fault it. It's only 5 mp but that is all I will ever need as I don't print larger than A3. There are plenty about and you can pick them up for less than Â£200 these days.


Should have read this post in full  - see you have gone for the Nikon aleady.


----------



## Tom Radford (Apr 28, 2009)

scoobie232 said:


> I was checking the prices new and they cost more now than they did last year
> 
> H..


Yep! Nikon had a massive price hike not long ago. I actualy benifitted from this. I bought a brand new Nikon D700 not long after it was released for Â£1400 (which was a bargain anyway) I then sold it with about 7000 clicks on it for Â£1700 a few months later!


----------



## scoobie232 (Dec 31, 2008)

Tom Radford said:


> scoobie232 said:
> 
> 
> > I was checking the prices new and they cost more now than they did last year
> ...


Maybe that's why i cant find a reasonably priced used 55-200 vr :dntknw:

Everyone's hanging on to them and watching the prices rocket 

H..


----------



## scoobie232 (Dec 31, 2008)

Stuart Davies said:


> Stuart Davies said:
> 
> 
> > Hugh - I use a Canon 300D (first generation DSLR) which I bought from new and I can't fault it. It's only 5 mp but that is all I will ever need as I don't print larger than A3. There are plenty about and you can pick them up for less than Â£200 these days.
> ...


Thanks Stuart,

Appreciate the thought 

H..


----------

