Which Camera? Please read OP first

piperh · 16-05-2012 10:33am

Hi i want to sell my camera was looking for second hand camera shops in meath/cavan areas do any of you know anywhere?

paulusdu · 16-05-2012 10:45am

Guys,

Im looking to pick up a fixed focal lens as i find i am taking more portrait shots these days. And while the kit lens i have (Nikon 18 - 200) is a good all round lens i think the shots are just on the soft side.
I have a Nikon D7000 and have narrowed it down to the following 3:

Nikon 35mm F:1.8G AF-S DX

Nikon 50mm F:1.4 D (ST)

Nikon 50mm F:1.8 D

Does anyone have any experience of the above ? if so how would you rate them ?

Cheers
Paul

cnocbui · 16-05-2012 10:54am

If your main purpose is portraits, you should perhaps consider fast lenses in the 80-100mm range.

Kenny Logins · 16-05-2012 12:18pm

paulusdu wrote: »

Guys,

Im looking to pick up a fixed focal lens as i find i am taking more portrait shots these days. And while the kit lens i have (Nikon 18 - 200) is a good all round lens i think the shots are just on the soft side.
I have a Nikon D7000 and have narrowed it down to the following 3:

Nikon 35mm F:1.8G AF-S DX

Nikon 50mm F:1.4 D (ST)

Nikon 50mm F:1.8 D

Does anyone have any experience of the above ? if so how would you rate them ?

Cheers
Paul

I have the 50mm f1.8G, great lens, really nice, and very sharp at f4. The 1.8D has the same optics (just no AF motor), and costs a lot less.

The 35mm would be a bit wide for portraits I think... but probably better for general use.

atwal · 16-05-2012 3:13pm

Hi group,

Just sold Nikon D3000- thought I can upgrade myself. My budget is between E1000 to E1250 for the camera body and I can spend some for the lenses.

My confusion is for this budget which Nikon model I should be going for. I am interested in both the pictures and video shooting. So wanted to get best out of the money spent. Thought I should get a pro model.

There are so many reviews on youtube and it has confused me more so writing here for the direct communication with the camera users.

Which Nikon model would you recommend for this price? I am open for Canon too if it has something better.

Cheers,
Atwal.

Telchak · 16-05-2012 3:28pm

Just in case I'm reading wrong, is that your budget for JUST the body?

Well, in your price range, I'd imagine the D7000 would be the most obvious by a stretch, or a second hand D300S if you can find one at a decent price.
On the Canon side, the 7D is awesome (:

A comparison between the two.

Greystoner · 17-05-2012 4:30pm

Hi there, I would call myself a 'keen amateur' in photography( eg,I know the basics and would use a camera 90%manual). I am now looking to buy a digital SLR. I previously owned an EOS300analogue but this was stolen, and after that I had a Nikon (not too impressed) and a Pentax (both analogue). I really like the Canons though.

Does anyone have any advice on which camera is the better/difference between the 550 and 600 apart from the weight/price? Also, where is a good place to buy one-in Dublin/Wicklow area?

Thanks.

5uspect · 17-05-2012 4:58pm

I think the main difference with the 600D is a fold out screen. There may be a few other odds and ends but it's the same sensor, more or less. Ultimately it's the lens that matters most.

Rew · 17-05-2012 5:01pm

fold out screen is the main diff. If you can push for a 60D it has a better AF system.

calnand · 17-05-2012 5:02pm

Greystoner wrote: »

Hi there, I would call myself a 'keen amateur' in photography( eg,I know the basics and would use a camera 90%manual). I am now looking to buy a digital SLR. I previously owned an EOS300analogue but this was stolen, and after that I had a Nikon (not too impressed) and a Pentax (both analogue). I really like the Canons though.

Does anyone have any advice on which camera is the better/difference between the 550 and 600 apart from the weight/price? Also, where is a good place to buy one-in Dublin/Wicklow area?

Thanks.

If your at any time in the future definitely getthe 600d, the tilt screen is so flexible when filming and can allow you to get shotsyou might not get with the 550d. For still pictures both are identical, the 600d has .1 more megapixels but it's irrelevant no difference whatsoever. It has a really good scene intelligent auto mode, a beefed up version of the feature you'd find on compacts and the auto on dslrs. It also has creative features which I've never used, I do all my processing in Photoshop or Lightroom.

So if you're going to be using it for filming get the 600d if not the 550d is just as good. Also the 600d is comfier to hold with a grip for the thumb, something a friend who has the 550d and really liked the grip. Try both out in the shop, I'm from cork so the only camera places I know in Dublin are conns cameras and camera centre? I think in blanchardstown.

Splinters · 17-05-2012 5:21pm

Depends on the price difference too. As mentioned they are essentially the same camera but with the 600D having the flip out screen. If theres any real difference in price then go for the 550 and put the difference towards the best lens you can afford. The difference in those two camera bodys will give absolutely zero difference in picture quality, however the difference with a high end lens compared to something like the ****ty 17-55 kit lens is practically day and night.

5uspect · 17-05-2012 5:56pm

Literally, you might say.

roguey · 17-05-2012 8:39pm

Splinters wrote: »

however the difference with a high end lens compared to something like the ****ty 17-55 kit lens is practically day and night.

The kit lens is the 18-55mm, not 17-55mm which is a great lens for crop sensors. L series like quality.

maddog · 17-05-2012 9:17pm

600D ftw!

Jonnykitedude · 17-05-2012 10:38pm

roguey wrote: »

The kit lens is the 18-55mm, not 17-55mm which is a great lens for crop sensors. L series like quality.

Id have to completely disagree, I bought the 550 it came with 18-55, yes it was fine for starting out did me for 12 months until I used one of pullandbangs L lenses......completely pi**ed all over the 18-55.

I have bought some sigma lenses too and they haven't a patch on the canon L series.

OP i have the 550 and love it.

pconn062 · 17-05-2012 10:45pm

Jonnykitedude wrote: »

Id have to completely disagree, I bought the 550 it came with 18-55, yes it was fine for starting out did me for 12 months until I used one of pullandbangs L lenses......completely pi**ed all over the 18-55.

I have bought some sigma lenses too and they haven't a patch on the canon L series.

OP i have the 550 and love it.

I think he's talking about the 17-55 2.8 lens, which is a quality bit of kit and costs a fair chunk of change.

Review here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The 18-55 is the standard kit lens that comes with most cameras.

calnand · 17-05-2012 10:49pm

I think the 18-55 is a really good lens, I got a 70-200 f/4 recently and from photos I've taken there hasn't been a massive difference in quality. Plus the 18-55 is image stabilised, comes in really handy when I can't hold the 70-200 steady enough.

pixbyjohn · 17-05-2012 10:54pm

Greystoner wrote: »

Does anyone have any advice on which camera is the better/difference between the 550 and 600 apart from the weight/price? Also, where is a good place to buy one-in Dublin/Wicklow area?

Thanks.

I would advie you to check out the following Dublin city camera shops for best price.
www.berminghamcameras.ie
www.connscameras.ie
and last but not least www.johngunn.ie
Harvey Norman sell cameras but are usually a lot more expensive than any of the above.
Good luck.

djgaillimh · 18-05-2012 12:13am

I'm sorry but I think he'd be crazy to buy in a Dublin camera shop.

A 600D with the 18-55 kit lens is €799 in Berminghams and €850 in Camera Centre.

T-Dimension (where I bought mine) sell the same kit for €530

http://www.ebay.ie/itm/U3240-Canon-EOS-Kiss-X5-600D-Body-18-55mm-II-Lens-Kit-1Year-Warranty-/220999140620?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item337493450c#ht_4842wt_1185

You might get hit with VAT on the way in but even then you're saving over a hundred quid compared to Dublin prices - which you can put towards a new lens.

There's a 1 year warranty with it too.

For me, their free delivery from Hong Kong took 3 days (three!) using FedEx, and they even marked the value on the box down so I ended up paying only €50 VAT (I didn't even ask them to do this, they just did it of their own accord).

I also bought a 50mm from them. Again, had no issues.

km991148 · 20-05-2012 5:02pm

Hey,

Have been considering getting a DSLR for a while now and was about to get a Nikon D7000. I know its probably more camera that I need now, but hoping that its good to start with and grow into..

However I am concerned about how much usage I will get from it. After trying out a couple of DSLRs (including a friends D90) I realise that its a fair bit of equipment to carry..!

That got me onto thinking about the new mirrorless cameras (I know.. DSLR vs "3rd Gen" is probably one of them topics for a photography forum..).

I reckon if I want mirrorless then I should hold off for a small while. Is this a fair assumption? What models would be recommended?

Or should I just 'man up' and get the D7k with all its bulk and be happy..?

I Appreciate any comments.. pointers for where to look etc

PCPhoto · 20-05-2012 5:11pm

its all relevant to what you want to shoot .... do you feel that a bridge camera would not suit ?

I cant comment on Nikon eqmt except to say that I'm a Canon person.

if you feel that a DSLR is essential then consider looking at the secondhand market - the latest camera may be great but a secondhand one could suit you perfectly also....and who knows you might be able to pick up a lens or two or even a flash or some accessories with the extra cash !!

Best of luck with your purchase .... ps. you could also put the money into learning how to post process or expose properly...learn more about photography.

km991148 · 20-05-2012 5:36pm

PCPhoto wrote: »

its all relevant to what you want to shoot .... do you feel that a bridge camera would not suit ?

I cant comment on Nikon eqmt except to say that I'm a Canon person.

if you feel that a DSLR is essential then consider looking at the secondhand market - the latest camera may be great but a secondhand one could suit you perfectly also....and who knows you might be able to pick up a lens or two or even a flash or some accessories with the extra cash !!

Best of luck with your purchase .... ps. you could also put the money into learning how to post process or expose properly...learn more about photography.

I reckon I want to initially shoot street and architecture (and general holiday/travel shots).

I feel reading about the mirrorless cameras that they are flawed in some way (some are slow to focus/ others have no viewfinder at all and need lcd etc) and that the market hasnt really settled - lots of existing photographers seem to be buying into them as 2nd cameras for out and about - but as a complete noob this doesnt apply to me.

Also I don't have a great understanding of the relationship between aperture/iso/shutter speed - only the theory from reading up on it.. so I wont have the experience when using a mirrorless.
I get the feeling that mirrorless isnt yet comparable to budget/mid dslrs (but will be getting there within a year or so) - maybe this is wrong?

Also - I realise that I have begun mentioning the latest Nikon for my budget (just about!) I dont want to be an Equipment Measurbator or Online Expert etc.. just want something decent for my budget to learn with (and also, hopefull not need to buy a new body for a good while - i.e. 5-10 years!)

Iancar29 · 20-05-2012 9:54pm

Hi there... i finally got around to upgrading to an SLR and i got the D7000 . Have it since January and i love it. The lens i got with it is the 18-105. Then i also use my brother's 10-20m sigma. Wouldn't have any complaints about the camera .

I was originally going to go for the 5100 but my brother ( D200 owner) convinced me that id only have the 5100 for awhile and id already be wanting to upgrade. So ye delighted with the D7000 and theres still so much i want to do and learn.

Any questions about the camera feel free.

Heres a link to my flickr which is half D7000 and half iphone 4 .

Cheers.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41948286@N02/

BengaLover · 20-05-2012 10:02pm

I upgraded to a DSLR and got the Sony A300 which is really really user friendly in that whatever settings you turn your dial too, you get an on screen message telling you what that setting does, great variety of lenses for it too.
Mine was originally 800e, reduced to 550e in Harvey Norman sale.
I am really glad I chose that one on the advice of the sales rep as I was going to go for a Nikon, but I am talking from an amateurs point of view, and I realise I dont need anything massive as I wouldnt justify the usage.

galwayjohn89 · 20-05-2012 10:21pm

I am looking for a camera on a very low budget of around €80 to maybe €100.

I know thats not a lot at all but I would like one that will take decent pictures of aircraft when they come in to land.

Any recommendations?

PCPhoto · 20-05-2012 10:37pm

km991148 wrote: »

I reckon I want to initially shoot street and architecture (and general holiday/travel shots).

I feel reading about the mirrorless cameras that they are flawed in some way (some are slow to focus/ others have no viewfinder at all and need lcd etc) and that the market hasnt really settled - lots of existing photographers seem to be buying into them as 2nd cameras for out and about - but as a complete noob this doesnt apply to me.

Also I don't have a great understanding of the relationship between aperture/iso/shutter speed - only the theory from reading up on it.. so I wont have the experience when using a mirrorless.
I get the feeling that mirrorless isnt yet comparable to budget/mid dslrs (but will be getting there within a year or so) - maybe this is wrong?

Also - I realise that I have begun mentioning the latest Nikon for my budget (just about!) I dont want to be an Equipment Measurbator or Online Expert etc.. just want something decent for my budget to learn with (and also, hopefull not need to buy a new body for a good while - i.e. 5-10 years!)

small problem with this.... in todays world cameras are changing and technology advances quickly ..... so you'll get maybe 2/3years max.....lenses on the other hand seem to last a good number of years.

sineadw · 20-05-2012 11:23pm

I've had my 5D over 5 yrs, and still don't feel the need to replace it.

PCros · 21-05-2012 11:21am

So I have had my 550D now for about 10 months and I'm looking to get a new lens as I just have the standard 18-55mm at the moment.

So I was looking at the 55-250mm lens - can somebody tell me the difference between item 1 and item 4?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&field-keywords=canon+lens

Also I was looking at the 75-300mm but it does not have the best reviews?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-75-300mm-4-0-5-6-III-Lens/dp/B00005K47Y/ref=sr_1_18?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1337595357&sr=1-18

If you were choosing which one would you go for in terms of all around quality? I cannot break the bank yet therefore I cannot look at any USM models on the same lenses.

Many thanks!

djgaillimh · 21-05-2012 12:53pm

PCros wrote: »

So I have had my 500D now for about 10 months and I'm looking to get a new lens as I just have the standard 18-55mm at the moment.

So I was looking at the 55-250mm lens - can somebody tell me the difference between item 1 and item 4?

In terms of optical quality, there seems to be no difference between the two lenses. Build quality was improved slightly on the MKII and I think they made some small improvements to its ability to handle glare.

If you're on a budget, get the MKI. It's available new for about €130 from these guys:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NEW-CANON-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5-6-ZOOM-LENS-55-250-mm-/290714667743?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item43aff1cadf#ht_4293wt_1185

If you look back a couple of pages in this thread, another poster said he bought from them and had no issues.

edit: and by all accounts, the 55-250 is a better lens than the 75-300.

cnocbui · 21-05-2012 1:57pm

km991148 wrote: »

I reckon I want to initially shoot street and architecture (and general holiday/travel shots).

I feel reading about the mirrorless cameras that they are flawed in some way (some are slow to focus/ others have no viewfinder at all and need lcd etc) and that the market hasnt really settled - lots of existing photographers seem to be buying into them as 2nd cameras for out and about - but as a complete noob this doesnt apply to me.

Also I don't have a great understanding of the relationship between aperture/iso/shutter speed - only the theory from reading up on it.. so I wont have the experience when using a mirrorless.
I get the feeling that mirrorless isnt yet comparable to budget/mid dslrs (but will be getting there within a year or so) - maybe this is wrong?

A lot of your assumptions about mirrorless cameras and their systems are incorrect, in particular the M4/3 system.

They have well and truly come of age and their sales have overtaken those of conventional DSLRs in Japan and the trend is that will pertain to the rest of the world before long. Full frame DSLRs - those with a sensor of the same size as 35mm film will likely survive, sort of taking the place medium format did in the film ecosystem, but midrange DSLR's with smaller, mostly APS-C size, sensors seem set for extinction.

You need no more knowledge of Aperture, shutter speed ISO etc to use a mirrorless camera than you do to use any other kind.

While in the past, the image quality and functional aspects of mirrorless cameras may have lagged larger formats a bit, and some people used them as a second system, the just released Olympus OM-D EM-5 has changed that and judging by the posts on mirrorless forums, photographers are
busy dumping their DSLR kit in droves and switching entirely. The E-M5 has extremely fast autofocus, quicker than almost any DSLR. It also has a unique in body image stabilisation system which is highly effective. Dpreview gave the camera a gold rating in their recent review you can read here: http://forums.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/

A nice bonus with the E-M5 is that with it's kit lens, it is entirely weather sealed, which is a nice feature to have in this country.

Several mirrorless models have LCD based viewfinders that work well. The one in the E-M5 I find is very usable. For your intended uses, the E-M5 would be ideal, because the small form factor makes it unobtrusive and less threatening in street situations, while it's wonderfully quiet shutter would go unnoticed in most situations.

I would suggest you have a look at the Olympus E-M5 and the Panasonic GH2, which has pro-quality video capabilities as a nice extra, however, there is an expectation that it may be superseded by a new model in a few months.

PCPhoto · 21-05-2012 2:28pm

sineadw wrote: »

I've had my 5D over 5 yrs, and still don't feel the need to replace it.

do you still use it constantly ? or as much as you did when you got it ....or is it used as a second body now ?

I still have my 5D and have a 40D both purchased from around the same time - 40D was goven to another photographer recently as his gear was stolen, the 5D is currently being used for underwater only - and since I've purchased the 7D housing my 5D will most likely be sold with housing and strobes over the next few weeks/months.

djgaillimh · 21-05-2012 5:04pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Full frame DSLRs - those with a sensor of the same size as 35mm film will likely survive, sort of taking the place medium format did in the film ecosystem, but midrange DSLR's with smaller, mostly APS-C size, sensors seem set for extinction.

[...] judging by the posts on mirrorless forums, photographers are
busy dumping their DSLR kit in droves and switching entirely.

I respect this guy's enthusiasm for the format, but I would take these comments with a pinch of salt.

The DSLR is not going anywhere in the next five to ten years. Mirrorless probably is the future, but the big boys are yet to fully commit to it and until they do, and until we know what Canon in particular is bringing to market, I'd hold off on jumping in with both feet.

In the mean-time, I'd suggest a second hand Canon xx0D to help you get a grip on the basics of camera use. 450Ds are pretty easy to come by these days and won't break the bank.

jonas7 · 24-05-2012 10:53am

I'm trying to decide between two cameras and I'm hoping somone here could advise me.
I'm thinking about taking up photography as a hobby but need it more so for family pictures. The two cameras I'm looking at are the Canon 1100d and the canon sx40. The first is an entry level dslr and the second is a superzoom bridge camera. They are both similarly priced.
I like both but find it hard to decide and would appreciate other peoples opinion on them.

Tallon · 24-05-2012 12:33pm

If you can afford the dslr, get it!

It means you have better options of upgrading in the future should you want / need too

I started out with a bridge, and it was great, but i ended up just selling it as when I bought my dslr, I had no use for it

hbr · 24-05-2012 3:37pm

Tallon wrote: »

If you can afford the dslr, get it!

I agree with Tallon. The DSLR will be significantly better in tricky situations
like low light or fast action. It will cost more than you expect because you
will end up buying several lenses, regardless of whether you actually need
them or not

The most basic models from Canon and Nikon are missing a
few features compared to the more advanced models.

I would consider getting a low mileage used Canon 500D
or a new/used 550D instead of the 1100D. The 550D is a
very compelling choice because:

It has a bigger, better, higher resolution LCD screen.
This really makes a difference when reviewing shots
or composing live-view and macro shots.

It shoots full 1080 HD video.

It has an input for an external microphone. The lack of a
mic socket on the 1100D and the 500D makes them almost
useless for shooting video.

The 550D is virtually identical to the newer 600D. Both are
based around the same 18MP sensor array which is also
used in the 60D and 7D. The only significant differences between
the 550D and the 600D are the flip-out LCD and wireless flash
control.

km991148 · 24-05-2012 10:53pm

Hey - been busy recently.. thanls for the replies and appologies for getting the wrong forum before!

Iancar29 wrote: »

Hi there... i finally got around to upgrading to an SLR and i got the D7000 . Have it since January and i love it. The lens i got with it is the 18-105. Then i also use my brother's 10-20m sigma. Wouldn't have any complaints about the camera .

I was originally going to go for the 5100 but my brother ( D200 owner) convinced me that id only have the 5100 for awhile and id already be wanting to upgrade. So ye delighted with the D7000 and theres still so much i want to do and learn.

Any questions about the camera feel free.

Heres a link to my flickr which is half D7000 and half iphone 4 .

Cheers.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41948286@N02/

Before I was aware of the new formats this is what I was thinking. I have the budget now for D7k and a lens or 5100 with 1-2 lenses + flash.. but I can spend more further down the line.. The small extras on the d7k seem to be worth it (A little faster, more controls, sturdier body etc etc). How do you feel about the stock lens? Rockwell reckons that its better not bothering.. but he knows what he's doing with lenses.. and I dont!

PCPhoto wrote: »

small problem with this.... in todays world cameras are changing and technology advances quickly ..... so you'll get maybe 2/3years max.....lenses on the other hand seem to last a good number of years.

Unfortuately I know how quickly tech advances! But these days I just let that happen. Before I would need to keep up with the latest and greatest.. but right now I beleive that if I am happy with what I buy now then it will last me a good bit of time.

cnocbui wrote: »

A lot of your assumptions about mirrorless cameras and their systems are incorrect, in particular the M4/3 system.

They have well and truly come of age and their sales have overtaken those of conventional DSLRs in Japan and the trend is that will pertain to the rest of the world before long. Full frame DSLRs - those with a sensor of the same size as 35mm film will likely survive, sort of taking the place medium format did in the film ecosystem, but midrange DSLR's with smaller, mostly APS-C size, sensors seem set for extinction.

You need no more knowledge of Aperture, shutter speed ISO etc to use a mirrorless camera than you do to use any other kind.

While in the past, the image quality and functional aspects of mirrorless cameras may have lagged larger formats a bit, and some people used them as a second system, the just released Olympus OM-D EM-5 has changed that and judging by the posts on mirrorless forums, photographers are
busy dumping their DSLR kit in droves and switching entirely. The E-M5 has extremely fast autofocus, quicker than almost any DSLR. It also has a unique in body image stabilisation system which is highly effective. Dpreview gave the camera a gold rating in their recent review you can read here: http://forums.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/

A nice bonus with the E-M5 is that with it's kit lens, it is entirely weather sealed, which is a nice feature to have in this country.

Several mirrorless models have LCD based viewfinders that work well. The one in the E-M5 I find is very usable. For your intended uses, the E-M5 would be ideal, because the small form factor makes it unobtrusive and less threatening in street situations, while it's wonderfully quiet shutter would go unnoticed in most situations.

I would suggest you have a look at the Olympus E-M5 and the Panasonic GH2, which has pro-quality video capabilities as a nice extra, however, there is an expectation that it may be superseded by a new model in a few months.

djgaillimh wrote: »

I respect this guy's enthusiasm for the format, but I would take these comments with a pinch of salt.

The DSLR is not going anywhere in the next five to ten years. Mirrorless probably is the future, but the big boys are yet to fully commit to it and until they do, and until we know what Canon in particular is bringing to market, I'd hold off on jumping in with both feet.

In the mean-time, I'd suggest a second hand Canon xx0D to help you get a grip on the basics of camera use. 450Ds are pretty easy to come by these days and won't break the bank.

I dont know enough about mirrorless.. and tbh.. i am more confused now than ever. I can really see the advantages in the mirrorless formats. But even reading the reviews for quoted olympus it still seem that there is a lot of uncertainty in the market. I want the advantages of mirrorless (APC DSLR Performance in more compact body) but really dont want to spend 1k+ of my hard earned on something that will be obssolete very soon (i.e. limited lenses or a huge drop in value as greater models will be out).

I am considering not buying at all now and see how this settles..

Chocolate Chip · 26-05-2012 9:06am

I'm just starting out and would like to buy a camera. I'm just wondering if you experts could recommend one that you think would be a good buy.

Someone is offering me a Canon 400D, a kit lens, and some accessories for €300. Does that sound like a good deal? (Is it a good camera? I am a complete beginner)

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Kenny Logins · 26-05-2012 9:58am

Chocolate Chip wrote: »

I'm just starting out and would like to buy a camera. I'm just wondering if you experts could recommend one that you think would be a good buy.

Someone is offering me a Canon 400D, a kit lens, and some accessories for €300. Does that sound like a good deal? (Is it a good camera? I am a complete beginner)

Any advice greatly appreciated.

There area few of them on adverts.ie for price comparison, and yes, I think it is a great camera for starting out with.

Chocolate Chip · 26-05-2012 10:23am

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

cnocbui · 26-05-2012 11:48am

km991148 wrote: »

I dont know enough about mirrorless.. and tbh.. i am more confused now than ever. I can really see the advantages in the mirrorless formats. But even reading the reviews for quoted olympus it still seem that there is a lot of uncertainty in the market. I want the advantages of mirrorless (APC DSLR Performance in more compact body) but really dont want to spend 1k+ of my hard earned on something that will be obssolete very soon (i.e. limited lenses or a huge drop in value as greater models will be out).

I am considering not buying at all now and see how this settles..

What uncertainty? I just bought a 4/3 camera and am not uncertain about the systems future in the slightest. The sensor in the Sony NEXs is too big to allow for really compact lenses and there are very few lenses available anyway. Nikon and Canon are late to the market and they wont be able to field a decent lens lineup for many years. The Fuji X cameras are too big, gimmicky can't focus and don't have many lenses available.

It's all about lenses. The M4/3 system is years ahead in terms of lens availability and that will be the case for years to come. Of interest to me is that almost all lenses with manual focus and aperture setting options can be used via adapters, giving the system probably the widest potential pool of available lenses of any system.

Buy a 35mm film camera. It won't become obsolete. All digital cameras become obsolete within 6 months of release.

I bought my camera on the basis of it's current capabilities and performance and how I perceived those would suit my needs. I know it will become 'obsolete' in market terms but it wont become obsolete in terms of what I want from it or how it performs.

TTWNF · 27-05-2012 8:13pm

Just looking for advice on what camera to buy. My budget is around €1000 for a camera & lens...

I will be taking shots of the following:
sports (horse-racing, soccer & rugby)
concert shots (bands/artists, nightclubs/gigs etc.)
nature shots
I feel i will be taking photos of moving objects/people a lot and sometimes in situations where the light may not be so great....

What camera & lens would people recommend?

Will probably buy in Dublin somewhere like Gunn's rather than the internet... Also, as i am a newbie my knowledge would be too limited to buy a secondhand camera

I was recommended the new Pentax k30 but its not out till July at the earliest... i think i'm gonna wait for it but anyone else with advice i'd love to hear it

Sad Professor · 27-05-2012 9:14pm

Need lens advice:

Any thoughts on Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens? I'm thinking about getting one to replace the non-IS kit lens that came with my 400D. I know it's still probably not that great, but I've heard it's quite a bit sharper and the image stabilisation helps a lot. Or would I be better off just saving up and getting something better? I don't want to spend a fortune though.

hbr · 28-05-2012 9:35am

Sad Professor wrote: »

Need lens advice:

Any thoughts on Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens? I'm thinking about getting one to replace the non-IS kit lens that came with my 400D.

You won't get a better lens for the money. Recent versions of the 18-55mm IS
are very sharp.

I know it's still probably not that great

It really is great. Have a look at the review on photozone.de

"I had to raise an eyebrow or two during the image browsing thereafter. In fact I rechecked the EXIF data in order to make sure that the (very sharp) images were taken with this lens - a member of the dreaded "kit" lens league after all."
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review

I've heard it's quite a bit sharper and the image stabilisation helps a lot. Or would I be better off just saving up and getting something better? I don't want to spend a fortune though.

It is visibly sharper than the old non-IS 18-55mm. I don't think IS is essential
at this range of FL. However, the IS system in the 18-55mm is very effective.

If you want something a little better than the 18-55mm, I can recommend the
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. It is even better than the Canon 18-55mm in terms of
sharpness, colour and contrast. The f/2.8 aperture can be useful in low light
or when you want a shallow DOF. Get the cheaper non-stabilised version. It
is slightly sharper than the more expensive VC model.

pconn062 · 28-05-2012 8:43pm

Hi folks, looking for a bit of advice. I'm considering moving to full frame and a friend of mine is selling a 5D mark I. I know this camera was the business when it first came out but just wondering if it's a bit dated at this stage? The main reason I would go for this is because the price seems about right, only about 500 euro but is it still a good piece of kit in this day and age? Cheers.

sebphoto · 28-05-2012 9:16pm

pconn062 wrote: »

Hi folks, looking for a bit of advice. I'm considering moving to full frame and a friend of mine is selling a 5D mark I. I know this camera was the business when it first came out but just wondering if it's a bit dated at this stage? The main reason I would go for this is because the price seems about right, only about 500 euro but is it still a good piece of kit in this day and age? Cheers.

It depends

Price might be good, however you should take into consideration shutter count.
If it's really high then sooner rather than later you'll have to pay €200 extra for shutter replacement.
Regarding camera itself, images are breadthtaking, but of course it depends what kind of lenses you have. Besides that, if you'd like to shot sport then AF is not that fast, but go for it if you can afford it.

pconn062 · 28-05-2012 9:56pm

sebphoto wrote: »

It depends
Price might be good, however you should take into consideration shutter count.
If it's really high then sooner rather than later you'll have to pay €200 extra for shutter replacement.
Regarding camera itself, images are breadthtaking, but of course it depends what kind of lenses you have. Besides that, if you'd like to shot sport then AF is not that fast, but go for it if you can afford it.

Thanks for that, the camera is about 5 years old, not used that often as the guy who owned it bought a Mark II 5d about two years ago and the Mark I hasn't done much since. Have some good lenses and would mainly shoot landscape as well as some family occasions and parties etc. So overall, if the shutter count is not too high it's still a viable piece of kit in this day and age?

Tallon · 28-05-2012 10:46pm

Yes, that is an awesome camera for 500 quid

Bogsider 16 · 29-05-2012 9:32am

Hey guys, new here and I'm just looking for some advice on what kind of options I have out there for a camera with this type of money,
I'm looking to take pictures of Street Art so I was hoping you might have some advice on what kind of things I could get, any help much appreciated,

Cheers

pwurple · 29-05-2012 9:34am

Sounds like you need it to be decent quality, but portable. I wouldn't bother with an SLR. Maybe something like a nikon coolpix.

Bogsider 16 · 29-05-2012 9:37am

Cheers for the suggestion, Had the coolpix and not really happy with the quality I was getting nighttime shots in particular seem to cause it a lot of problems with fuzz and light blurring (I'm very technical as you can see), I'm looking for somethig that is a step up from the coolpix, am I being unrealistic at that price?

Which Camera? **Please read OP first**

Comments

Which Camera? Please read OP first