# Dslr Recommendations?



## Who. Me? (Jan 12, 2007)

I know this should be in the Photography forum, but that doesn't seem to get much traffic, so I'll stick it here and the mods can move it if they feel that it should be so.

I've been pondering getting a DSLR for a while, but not particularly seriously, as I've been of the opinion that they're overpriced on a megapixel basis (plus I have the perception that lenses etc are hideously expensive), but I'm thinking a bit more seriously about it now.

I'm looking for something that...

Takes decent pictures

Will last me several years of occasional use (i.e. won't fall apart and will not go obsolete tomorrow)

Has good backwards compatibility with pre-digital SLR lenses (so I can get cheaper lenses on fleabay)

Can be bought as a 'body plus one lens' kit for under Â£400 (I wouldn't rule out a properly reconditioned body)

I have an old Yashica mullti-program (manual focus) SLR that I haven't used since I bought my digital compact. I had a small kit of three lenses (75-200mm telephoto, 50mm 'normal' lens and a 28mm wide-angle lens, all contax-mount, but cheaper brands.

Ultimately, I'd like to replace that setup and add a good macro lens or converter (obviously, not all for Â£400). If I can re-use any filters, or even the lenses, I'd be even happier, but that isn't a 'killer'.

What are the forum-photographers' recommendations?

And which is the more important with a DSLR; megapixels or decent lenses?

You can safely assume I know nowt at this time. I'd struggle to remember how to use my Yashica today.

Cheers

Andy


----------



## Fatbloke (Oct 15, 2007)

if you want to make backwards compatability savings sony uses the old minolta mount which means you can save a few quid on the lenses secondhand, and a lot of the minolta accessories such as flashguns work too


----------



## Who. Me? (Jan 12, 2007)

Fatbloke said:


> if you want to make backwards compatability savings sony uses the old minolta mount which means you can save a few quid on the lenses secondhand, and a lot of the minolta accessories such as flashguns work too


That's a good start, thanks!

A colleage bought a Sony a few months back, and mentioned it had backwards-compatibility, didn't ask her whose lenses it used.

Any advance on Sony? Any comments on picture quality/features on the Sony range?

Cheers

Andy


----------



## PaulBoy (Dec 2, 2007)

Andy - I would say to meet your criteria stay with the "big two" - Canon & Nikon - Buy a used body too as camera geeks are just like us and buy & sell once the upgrade bug hits so there is a huge market in Canon & Nikon gear (they also look after their gear like we do!) - Before my head got turned to watches I was keen on digital photography & would highly recommend www.talkphotography.co.uk as the camera equivalent to this forum for all things camera - despite being rubbish at photography I do have a decent DSLR - A Nikon D80 together with just 2 lenses - a Sigma 17-70mm which can do macro plus a 70-300mm for longer stuff like trips to the zoo etc - Have a poke around at talkphotography for more up to date advice etc

HTH ... Paul


----------



## Who. Me? (Jan 12, 2007)

PaulBoy said:


> Andy - I would say to meet your criteria stay with the "big two" - Canon & Nikon - Buy a used body too as camera geeks are just like us and buy & sell once the upgrade bug hits so there is a huge market in Canon & Nikon gear (they also look after their gear like we do!) - Before my head got turned to watches I was keen on digital photography & would highly recommend www.talkphotography.co.uk as the camera equivalent to this forum for all things camera - despite being rubbish at photography I do have a decent DSLR - A Nikon D80 together with just 2 lenses - a Sigma 17-70mm which can do macro plus a 70-300mm for longer stuff like trips to the zoo etc - Have a poke around at talkphotography for more up to date advice etc
> 
> HTH ... Paul


Thanks, I'll have a look over there, the number of websites about DSLRs and review sites just makes it bewildering.

My concern about Nikon and Canon is lens-compatibility. I've read that the D40 Nikon is very good for the money, but isn't compatible with the older-style Auto-Focus.

The older ones (likely to be the ones that I could get as reconditioned) have that compatibility, but lower megapixel CCDs. How important is the pixel-number, compared to lenses, electronics etc?


----------



## Fatbloke (Oct 15, 2007)

Who. Me? said:


> Fatbloke said:
> 
> 
> > if you want to make backwards compatability savings sony uses the old minolta mount which means you can save a few quid on the lenses secondhand, and a lot of the minolta accessories such as flashguns work too
> ...


I use the first sony, alpha 100, I bought it because I used minolta previously and had lenses flash and a load of other bits and it would have meant buying new lenses to go digital, they have released all new models now and to be honest I am not sure which is which, but mine has done a good job and is well built (its sony after all) and has loads of features including a built in anti shake which is great in low light situations.

Best advice i can give though is you need to see whcih one is best for you to actually use so its worth going to a reputable dealer and trying one out for yourself, compare a couple as some may not feel right to use for you and if you want maximum use out of it you need to be able to get along with it.


----------



## MIKE (Feb 23, 2003)

Fatbloke said:


> Best advice i can give though is you need to see whcih one is best for you to actually use so its worth going to a reputable dealer and trying one out for yourself, compare a couple as some may not feel right to use for you and if you want maximum use out of it you need to be able to get along with it.


That's good advice, I had a Canon SLR then a couple of Canon G series digital compacts. When I went for a DSLR I got an Olympus kit (having sold my old 35mm EOS kit :cry2: ) as it was a good deal on the sales forum. After Canon and being used to their way of "doing things" the Olympus took some getting used to. Obviously the controls acheive the same settings but it did feel a bit alien pressing/turning the wrong knob h34r: as this was the way you got the setting with a Canon. Not so bad now with use but it surprised me, how used to one manufacturer you can get.

One thing for sure,you will not regret getting a DSLR it was nice to handle a "proper camera" again, that took a picture straight away like with old film. Compacts are O.K but I do like the handling of a SLR.

Mike


----------



## Who. Me? (Jan 12, 2007)

Fatbloke said:


> I use the first sony, alpha 100, I bought it because I used minolta previously and had lenses flash and a load of other bits and it would have meant buying new lenses to go digital, they have released all new models now and to be honest I am not sure which is which, but mine has done a good job and is well built (its sony after all) and has loads of features including a built in anti shake which is great in low light situations.
> 
> Best advice i can give though is you need to see whcih one is best for you to actually use so its worth going to a reputable dealer and trying one out for yourself, compare a couple as some may not feel right to use for you and if you want maximum use out of it you need to be able to get along with it.


I like the price and backwards compatibility of Sony, just wonder about the image quality (they're not a company I'd traditionally associate with SLR cameras).

I like the look of the Sony D350 (but it may be a little pricy), the Nikon D40 looks very good, and a mate has got one, but the lens prices are :jawdrop:

Decisions, decisions, decisions. Trying to get together a short-list, before I go looking.


----------



## Fatbloke (Oct 15, 2007)

the quality is as good as anything else at the price IMHO, I use mine to do a lot of bands and I can blow them up to 12x8 with great results and would probably go much bigger without any problems.

I doubt you would be disappointed by any camera quality wise in this range nowadays anyway.


----------



## Deego (Jan 1, 2008)

I have just (end of May) got a Sony a200 that works with all my old Minolta film SLR lenses, I am very pleased with it so far. I moved up from a Fuji s9500 and feel the image quality is LOT's better. All the specs of the a200 and Len's I use can bee seen here but the main benefit of the sony, is the image stabilization is in the body so ALL lenses benefit from it, even the old cheep ones.

Some of the photos taken with the a200 can be seen on my site...

Seiko Diver yellow

Timex watch photos

Tag watch photos

4x4 off road fun day

Monkey forest

Photos from York

its a mixed bag and it seemed to cope with it all...


----------



## Fatbloke (Oct 15, 2007)

Deego said:


> I have just (end of May) got a Sony a200 that works with all my old Minolta film SLR lenses, I am very pleased with it so far. I moved up from a Fuji s9500 and feel the image quality is LOT's better. All the specs of the a200 and Len's I use can bee seen here but the main benefit of the sony, is the image stabilization is in the body so ALL lenses benefit from it, even the old cheep ones.
> 
> Some of the photos taken with the a200 can be seen on my site...
> 
> ...


great pictures, I went that monkey forest last year got to go back soon I think


----------



## Deego (Jan 1, 2008)

Thanks Fatbloke  

and thanks Paulboy just been looking at www.talkphotography.co.uk and it looks like a good photo forum


----------



## Who. Me? (Jan 12, 2007)

Went out to look at cameras today, seems that the internet has killed camera shops though. Was stuck with Jessops and Currys 

The Sony a300/a350 are winning at the moment (although the a200 was nicer to hold and had fewer distracting buttons, but lacked a live view).

Fatbloke - one of the assistants in Jessops claimed that the Sonys weren't very backwards compatible and that the AF and other functions won't work for older lenses, have you found that to be the case with your older lenses?

I did have a good look at the Nikon, but ergonomicaly, it's all wrong for my grip. Tthe shutter release button is too far forward for me. Add that to the difference in features to the Sony, and I'd strike the Nikon D40 and D60.

Didn't have a chance to hold a Canon today. Which is the Canon equivalent? The 450D is too pricey.


----------



## Fatbloke (Oct 15, 2007)

I use a couple of old minolta lenses and they work fine on my sony, as does the flash and the remote release switches, no problems at all.

Glad you got hold of one anyway before you commtted to buying, plenty of canon dealers abotu though, is there a calumet near you? they do canon but they are aimed at the pro end of the market


----------



## Who. Me? (Jan 12, 2007)

Thanks for confirming.

Nearest Calumet appears to be in Wardour Street London. Might take a trip up there in a couple of weeks and wander over to Tottenham Court Road.

Haven't been up there in years.


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

I bought a Canon 350d body off ebay a few weeks ago to upgrade my d300, it cost me Â£148 ....

I sold my old d300 for Â£130 to my bro in law, so I had a nice upgrade for fek all really... 

The 350D ( 8mp) is great.


----------



## SeattleMike (Apr 22, 2008)

Fatbloke said:


> I use the first sony, alpha 100, I bought it because I used minolta previously and had lenses flash and a load of other bits and it would have meant buying new lenses to go digital, they have released all new models now and to be honest I am not sure which is which, but mine has done a good job and is well built (its sony after all) and has loads of features including a built in anti shake which is great in low light situations.


I have a Sony Alpha as well and love it. I havent bought any new lenses yet but plan to and as far as I know the sony/minolta is the only one that has the "anti jiggle" system built into the body rather then the lens, which means new lenses are a fraction of the price of the other makes.


----------



## unlcky alf (Nov 19, 2006)

SeattleMike said:


> I have a Sony Alpha as well and love it. I havent bought any new lenses yet but plan to and as far as I know the sony/minolta is the only one that has the "anti jiggle" system built into the body rather then the lens, which means new lenses are a fraction of the price of the other makes.


Pentax and Samsung also have vibration reduction built into the body and, as Mike says, lenses tend to be a good deal cheaper. It also means that you can buy older lenses with the same mount type and enjoy the VR benefits on those too. Good luck, I'm sure that you'll have loads of fun with whatever you choose*

* Beware of lens aquisition syndrome though, it's a serious threat to your watch budget :lol:


----------



## Who. Me? (Jan 12, 2007)

From the research I've been doing, I think I'll go for a Sony a200 single lens kit and add a second hand macro for macro and 'normal' shots, then wide and longer telephoto later, if I find the kit lens disappointing.

Am planning a trip up to the Tottenham Court Road to see if I can get them to better the internet deals that are around at the mo.

Thanks for all the advice.

BTW I found this place to be pretty good for side-by-side reviews and comparisons of results from their own range of 'standard' shots...

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

None of the other reviews I read had the one thing that I wanted and that was to see the same, or very similar, photo, shot with different cameras on the same settings, and how else can you tell how good the cameras actually are (rather than how good the reviewing photographers are)?

Their forum was very helpful too.


----------

