First DSLR Camera

spudulike

Hi All,

I'm hoping the experts here can help. i'm looking to buy my first DSLR camera as we have an upcoming family event and want to get some good pics.

I've done some research and visited a few stores. I'm narrowing it down to this one but wanted to get any opinions on this camera... based on this price range and the features it has.... what do people think... good camera at this price???

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00HH8A60C/ref=s9_simh_gw_p421_d1_i1?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=1879MNBH61YAWKFGNPNH&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=867551827&pf_rd_i=desktop

Thanks All.

magicbastarder

first comment that comes to mind - it's a compact camera, not an SLR. it does have the ability to swap lenses on it though.
that price (assuming free delivery) is about €100 cheaper than what seems to be the newer version of the camera in ireland (going on conns cameras prices - the 5100 model). may be worth ringing around in irish shops to see if they'll give you a discount on the 5000 if they've any left in stock?

spudulike

There you go... I though it was a SLR... based on that kind of price range should I be looking at other (full SLR's?)

Cheers.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

magicbastarder

it's over 3 times the price.

spudulike

that's a bit out of the price range alright...

ED E

Whats the event? What kind of lighting? Sensor size can have a big impact in low light so if its a wedding reception in a dimly lit hotel it'll be something to consider.

In this category I've used a GF7, very nice little unit:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GF7-12-32-3-5-5-6/dp/B00T53G3N6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460545605&sr=8-1&keywords=DMC-GF7

Its very good for selfies too if thats what you're into.

bpmurray

The Sony Alpha, while not a DSLR, is basically the same idea but without the moving mirror, so it's physically smaller. It has exchangeable lenses, although the range is smaller than for the traditional Canon or Nikon. You can extend its functionality with apps, although I believe you have to pay for these. Basically, it's a pleasant enough camera. one thing it doesn't have is image stabilization, although you can get alternative lenses with Sony's OSS stabilization.

Its successor (the A6300) is quite a bit better, but it's a lot more expensive. However, if I was to go for a Sony Alpha, I'd go for the A3000: stabilization, viewfinder, external flash - all missing from the A5000.

@draiochtanois suggested the Fuji X100T which is an awesome camera, but it's eye-wateringly expensive for a fixed lens camera, i.e. you can't swap lenses.

Some popular entry-level DLSRs are the Nikon D3300 and the Canon 100D or even the Sony SLT A37.
Anyway, if you want to compare cameras, have a look at http://snapsort.com.

spudulike

Whats the event? What kind of lighting? Sensor size can have a big impact in low light so if its a wedding reception in a dimly lit hotel it'll be something to consider.

The event is a first holy communion up first but we have other family events coming aswell... as kids will be involved I suppose stabilization is probably important.

CabanSail

What do you have now?

How is that restricting you?

If you think that getting a new camera is going to make a huge improvement to the photographs then you may be disappointed. Certain features do make a difference but they are not as dramatic as learning about light, composition, exposure and processing.

If you don't have a camera at all then I am sure the ones mentioned here, and plenty of others will do a fine job.


It is common to think, as the companies push it, that getting a new camera will improve your photographs. It is same as thinking that a new car will improve your driving. Sure it may be a bit easier but to get the most out of the equipment takes education, training and aptitude.

spudulike

CabanSail wrote: »

What do you have now?

How is that restricting you?

If you think that getting a new camera is going to make a huge improvement to the photographs then you may be disappointed. Certain features do make a difference but they are not as dramatic as learning about light, composition, exposure and processing.

If you don't have a camera at all then I am sure the ones mentioned here, and plenty of others will do a fine job.


It is common to think, as the companies push it, that getting a new camera will improve your photographs. It is same as thinking that a new car will improve your driving. Sure it may be a bit easier but to get the most out of the equipment takes education, training and aptitude.

You've raised some good questions there... The camera I had has broken so I have to get something... but perhaps I should just look for something fairly basic... mabey a decent bridge and just go with that... would you recommend anything in that line?

CabanSail

There is a huge variety in that range. Most are good, I am sure some are better than others. I would recommend the reviews on DPReview.

Many here would not have much need to look at cameras in that range. The requirements of most here would be quite different to yours. The features which we would list as "must have" would be things which you may never use, likewise the important features to you may not be a high priority for us. It would be like asking a racing driver what is the best car to drive to the shops.

I will say that in the compact camera range I have always found that Canon offer some great units (my DSLR System is Nikon) but I bought an Olympus for my wife a few years ago and it is superb. Then a lot of people rave about the Sony range as well.

We will help to guide you and interpret the specs etc. but will probably not be familiar with cameras in the area which will suit you. My take on it is look for units which have a bigger sensor (physically not MP) and the best quality lens in your budget.

bpmurray

spudulike wrote: »

You've raised some good questions there... The camera I had has broken so I have to get something... but perhaps I should just look for something fairly basic... mabey a decent bridge and just go with that... would you recommend anything in that line?

I use both DSLR and bridge cameras for different purposes. One thing the bridge cameras often offer is the enormous zoom, e.g. my Lumix FZ72 has the equivalent of a 1200mm lens which I could never afford for the DSLR. In general, the bridge is more a "fun" camera. I actually used them for years before moving to DSLR so it's actually a great path into more advanced photography and your idea is probably the right way to go.

Things to consider in a bridge camera:

• Some of them have quite a narrow aperture - make sure that the lowest f-value is as low as possible. For example, the Canon PowerShot SX60 is a fine camera withan insane 65x zoom (almost 1400mm equivalent) but its max aperture is f3.6. On the other hand, the Fujifilm FinePix HS50 EXR goes up to f2.8.
• Make sure you can capture pics in raw mode. While you probably won't use this for a while, this actually gives you the opportunity to recover pics since it has all the recorded information available in the file.
• The big zoom can be fun, but the reality is that the quality of images at these enormous zooms is not great. The aperture is too narrow in most, the distance requires that you use some support like a tripod or, at least, something to lean on. So don't put this on the top of your list.

My personal favourites are the Panasonic bridge cameras, but that's a matter of taste. In particular the FZ1000 has a 1-inch sensor and allows f2.8 over the entire range of its zoom, although it is quite a bit more expensive than other zooms (Conns cameras does it for around €700).

Damien King

bpmurray wrote: »

However, if I was to go for a Sony Alpha, I'd go for the A3000

I'd second that, picked one up last year as an upgrade from a NEX 3.so i could still use my lenses. Fantastic camera for the money. Its essentially a NEX in a "proper" camera body.

It does feel a bit cheap, but not nasty. focus peaking is very handy when using the viewfinder.