Brands of DSLR

brokenarms

Hi.
I had a canon 1000d in the past and down graded to a bridge. Mistake.

Now I have returned the bridge cam I would like another dslr.

Im not loyal to any brand so I was thinking .


Would a Sony be better than canon with regards to upgrading lenses in the future?

I like the look of the 1100d but canon lenses are crazy money .

What would you do with 300 sterling. I dont mind going second hand as long as the shutter count is under 10k.

pete4130

For me personally I wouldn't move away from Canon or Nikon. People will argue against this or call it brand snobbery.

The long and short of it is Nikon and Canon have many more models of used cameras, many more and wider variety of lenses (used and new) and its more accessible to upgrade, switch lenses, borrow kit with other people.

Nikon and Canon specialise in imaging equipment and have done for years.

Sony bought out Minolta and their technology. Sony make computers, consoles, mp3 players, TV's, DVD players, earphones, telephones. Nikon and Canon are primarily camera and optics specific companies. They make good cameras. You just don't have the choice of accessories with Sony that is available 2nd had that you do with Nikon and Canon.

CabanSail

brokenarms wrote: »

I like the look of the 1100d but canon lenses are crazy money .

With Glass you get what you pay for.

The Pro Lenses from Canon & Nikon are very high quality. To get the same quality for Sony you will be looking at their range made by Carl Zeiss. Once again excellent quality but the prices are also steep.

brokenarms

Thanks. I have been considering getting the 1100d and using old nikon lenses with adapters They seem very cheap for top glass.
I know I wont have auto focus, but I think I could live without it if using for non action shooting.

amdgilmore

Why not buy a Nikon, then?

They're just as good as Canon (arguably better in terms of image quality, though they fall a little short for video).

brokenarms

amdgilmore wrote: »

Why not buy a Nikon, then?

They're just as good as Canon (arguably better in terms of image quality, though they fall a little short for video).

Can the old AI lenses be used on entry level Nikons without an adaptor?

Ive never used a Nikon camera before.

strandroad

Pentax may be an option. They have a good range of lenses, bodies are stabilised so lenses are lighter and cheaper, and the mount has not changed in years so you can get manual lenses for peanuts on ebay to experiment with. Pentax k-5 is a quality camera, excellent build and great value.

amdgilmore

I'm open to correction, but I think every F-Mount lens works on every Nikon SLR/DSLR since the 60s.

I use Canon, myself... maybe a Nikonian will tell us if that's correct.

Edit: At your budget you could easily pick up a second hand D3100 with a lens.

Memnoch

With the Panasonic GH3's release imminent the GH2 could be had second hand (without any glass) for the kind of price you are looking for in the near future. In terms of image quality for video work it competes quite well with cameras many times the price like the Canon 5D Mark II and III. It gives a beautiful filmy look and for many DSLR film makers is the best choice for what you pay for it.

I'd suggest you research the GH2 as well as watch some films shot with it on vimeo. Canon is the most popular brand because they came on the DSLR scene first but their treatment of the market since then in the way that they have delivered upgrades has been nothing short of contemptuous.

brokenarms

amdgilmore wrote: »

I'm open to correction, but I think every F-Mount lens works on every Nikon SLR/DSLR since the 60s.

I use Canon, myself... maybe a Nikonian will tell us if that's correct.

Edit: At your budget you could easily pick up a second hand D3100 with a lens.

So. I could get the Nikon 3100 with kit lens and a few cheap old lenses and produce quality pictures. And still be in budget.

I was trying to shoot a morning scene this morning with a fugifilm HS-30 bridge.

Grainly , noisy , and soft was the result even at iso 100 in the brightness. Never again with a small sensor. Waste of a morning. In the box with a return sticker on it to Amazon.

amdgilmore

I believe you could do that, yes.

Canon are a real pain in the ass with their EF mount vs EF-S mount, and the abandonment of the old FD mount. Needless complications that only end up costing the customer money. There's a distinct lack of customer friendliness in the way they do business.

If I knew what I know now and was buying for the first time, I would go with Nikon.

I may yet switch, to be honest.

D3100 is a great camera. If you can get one in good condition, go for it. edit: but obviously do a bit of research and have a look round first to see if it meets your needs. Snapsort.com is useful for comparisons and DPreview will give you in depth reviews.

pete4130

To be fair, someone getting a DSLR will probably be looking at a 70-300, an 18-50, an 18-200 or something like that before they decide to upgrade to a better body and lenses and I don't think the older Canon lens issue is going to be a factor.

Who do you know that buys a new DSLR and a 40 year old lens from eBay right away?
Edit:.....and wont' Auto Focus, probably has fungus and won't be used much for the above reasons.

brokenarms

. Im going to chew it over for a while. Research what fits what.

great advise . thanks again

amdgilmore

pete4130 wrote: »

Who do you know that buys a new DSLR and a 40 year old lens from eBay right away?
Edit:.....and wont' Auto Focus, probably has fungus and won't be used much for the above reasons.

Me!

The point is that the availability of cheap, working, high quality older lenses on Nikon makes it an attractive option for amateurs. Some of those old Nikkor lenses are excellent.

brokenarms

amdgilmore wrote: »

Me!

The point is that the availability of cheap, working, high quality older lenses on Nikon makes it an attractive option for amateurs. Some of those old Nikkor lenses are excellent.

Yeah from what I have read so far. For the money one would buy a new modern cheap telephoto, you can buy a whole range of serious professional old glass.

Just with no AF. For still life pics I could live with that. Until I save for the modern good stuff that is.

Im going for it I think.