First DSLR suggestions?

DonalB1

Hi,

I'm lookimg at buying my first DSLR and I'm wondering what is the best one to purchase for under €1,000?

Basically what I'm looking for is to capture scenic photos. Something similar to these?



I understand that the camera that captured these is probably worth well in excess of €3,000 and that there's a lot of colour touch ups added but what camera would be best at capturing images similar to those for under €1,000.

Any help is greatly appreciated, and thanks in advance

dev100

It all depends, you can buy brand new basic model or buy a second hand model but a better camera . Your lens would be just as important or worth spending more money on . What brand are you looking at ?

DonalB1

Thanks for the response, much appreciated...Canon or Nikon but tbh I'm not fussed at all...

I'm just wondering is it possible to get images with such good detail on a DSLR worth under €1,000?

I have an iphone 7 and the images are great but I would never be able to capture the above images with that.

I'm doing a little bit of travelling during the Summer, I don't plan on printing but I would like to start uploading high quality images online and would like to find the best camera possible for the job, within my budget

Paulw

Almost any DSLR can capture photos like those. A decent camera, a decent lens, some photoshop processing and you will get photos like those.

Canon and Nikon are good reliable brands, with plenty of lens choices.

DonalB1

Paulw wrote: »

Almost any DSLR can capture photos like those. A decent camera, a decent lens, some photoshop processing and you will get photos like those.

Canon and Nikon are good reliable brands, with plenty of lens choices.

So for instance would a Canon 100D be able to capture images like that?

What is it that I should be looking for if I'm mainly planning on upload online? What's the main thing? Is it megapixels?

dev100

DonalB1 wrote:

I'm just wondering is it possible to get images with such good detail on a DSLR worth under €1,000?

You would be surprised what shots you can get with a phone camera . I took my HTC m9 on holidays and was surprised by it but it's hard to get of field ..


I've 2 Nikon's and and 2 pieces of good glass . It gets expensive !!!

DonalB1

dev100 wrote: »

You would be surprised what shots you can get with a phone camera . I took my HTC m9 on holidays and was surprised by it but it's hard to get of field ..


I've 2 Nikon's and and 2 pieces of good glass . It gets expensive !!!

Yea my iphone 7 gets great photos, really impressed by them. But I'd like to capture images like the ones above and it's just not possible with the 7. The iphone 7 has a 12mp camera and most of the DSLR are 18mp and above, is that the main difference between them ?

Paulw

DonalB1 wrote: »

The iphone 7 has a 12mp camera and most of the DSLR are 18mp and above, is that the main difference between them ?

It's not about the megapixelxels. It's more about the sensor size.

A phone has a sensor about the size of your thumbnail. The sensor in your camera has one about 4 times that. So, it captures a lot more data.

An 8mp SLR will take better quality images than a 12mp phone.

The Canon 100D is a fine camera. But, you also want to buy a decent lens or two with it. And then you want some software to process your images. Lightroom is probably best overall for that.

DonalB1

Paulw wrote: »

It's not about the megapixelxels. It's more about the sensor size.

A phone has a sensor about the size of your thumbnail. The sensor in your camera has one about 4 times that. So, it captures a lot more data.

An 8mp SLR will take better quality images than a 12mp phone.

The Canon 100D is a fine camera. But, you also want to buy a decent lens or two with it. And then you want some software to process your images. Lightroom is probably best overall for that.

Thanks for that...really cleared the confusion up, I was actually told to buy the 100D as it's a great camera for a beginner.

Paulw

DonalB1 wrote: »

I was actually told to buy the 100D as it's a great camera for a beginner.

From looking at the specs, it's a good camera. But, a quality photo is just as much (if not more) about the lens.

You invest in lenses. Camera bodies will change over time (I won't even say how many bodies I've been through), but quality lenses will last much longer. So, make sure you invest in quality lenses too.

My best advice - go to a shop. Feel the camera in your hands, no matter where you buy it from. Hold it. Made sure it feels right in your hand. Some bodies feel small in your hands, some feel too light, some too heavy, some too palstic, some too metallic, etc. Just get a feel for it before you buy.

DonalB1

Paulw wrote: »

From looking at the specs, it's a good camera. But, a quality photo is just as much (if not more) about the lens.

You invest in lenses. Camera bodies will change over time (I won't even say how many bodies I've been through), but quality lenses will last much longer. So, make sure you invest in quality lenses too.

My best advice - go to a shop. Feel the camera in your hands, no matter where you buy it from. Hold it. Made sure it feels right in your hand. Some bodies feel small in your hands, some feel too light, some too heavy, some too palstic, some too metallic, etc. Just get a feel for it before you buy.

Thanks for the response, and I'm sorry to ask a silly question but how will I know what a good lense is when I'm buying one? What should I look for?

Sorry now for the real novice questions and I appreciate ye walking me through it

Paulw

DonalB1 wrote: »

how will I know what a good lense is when I'm buying one? What should I look for?

Research. Weight is also a good indicator. More glass.

What lens you want will depend a lot on what you want to photograph.

Landscapes tend to be with wider lenses. (10-35mm bracket)

People, travel, street photography, etc tend to be with a medium range lens. (24-100mm bracket)

Wildlife, sport, birds, etc, tend to be long lenses. (70-800mm bracket).

Lenses range in quality, aperture and range, and also vary in price from hundreds to thousands. You can pay as little as €100 for a 50mm f/1.8 lens, or €11k for a 400mm f/2.8 lens, or €120k for a 1200mm lens.

I would advise that you buy once and buy right, rather than buy a lens, then trade up to a better quality one later. It will cost you more in the end.

georgefalls

This'll give you an idea on sensor sizes.

Megapixels aren't all that important.

georgefalls

Paulw wrote: »

It's not about the megapixelxels. It's more about the sensor size.

A phone has a sensor about the size of your thumbnail. The sensor in your camera has one about 4 times that. So, it captures a lot more data.

An 8mp SLR will take better quality images than a 12mp phone.

The Canon 100D is a fine camera. But, you also want to buy a decent lens or two with it. And then you want some software to process your images. Lightroom is probably best overall for that.

Check out that chart. You must have a really tiny thumbnail

CabanSail

DonalB1 wrote: »

Hi,

I'm lookimg at buying my first DSLR and I'm wondering what is the best one to purchase for under €1,000?

Basically what I'm looking for is to capture scenic photos. Something similar to these?



I understand that the camera that captured these is probably worth well in excess of €3,000 and that there's a lot of colour touch ups added but what camera would be best at capturing images similar to those for under €1,000.

Any help is greatly appreciated, and thanks in advance

If you are looking to get images like the one above then just about any camera on the market will do that (Most will even crop the top of the spire for you) That is not really a challenging photo at all. There is plenty of light and it is a wide depth of field shot.

The problem is that you seem to have fallen into the myth that the quality of the image is down to the capabilies of the camera. The scene you have shown would look about the same out of most cameras on the market from those in phones to the top of the line medium format ones. The light in the scene is OK and there is an interesting sky. That will then have probably subjected to some processing which has increased the contrast and made the colours a bit more vivid.

If you want to get better photographs then just laying out cash on a more expensive camera is not the solution. It is like saying to become a better driver you buy a more expensive car.

wersal gummage

Would you consider second hand?

Lots of people buy the 100d type camera and then upgrade after a while to something else. Also some people want to have the latest camera and will upgrade a perfectly good camera. This could perhaps leave you with some extra money to buy a nice lens.

On lenses, just be aware that some manufacturers make different types of lenses for different types of camera. I use Canon, but cannot buy any Canon lens for instance.

forbairt

Looking at the 100D it seems like a pretty decent starter / budget camera (I was comparing it to my old 550D) which has served me for 6 years very well. Very similar spec. As has been pointed out there's nothing really that special about the photos you've linked to and a half decent point and shoot would probably do a similar job.

The big factor are the lenses. All mine are rather budget lenses that have served me well for a variety of uses. Food / Cats / Moon / Portrait ... Once you play with a higher end camera and some decent lenses you'll really start to notice the difference.

If you've got friends with DLR cameras it could worth while taking them for a test spin. Also it can be nice to be able to borrow a lens from a friend so having the same brand could be good. There's also the question of the size of the camera and how many lenses you'll be carrying around with you.

DonalB1

Yes I would definitely consider buying second hand, I just don't want to purchase something and then it's not what I'm looking for. I know what I want in terms of image I just don't know enough about cameras to know which one or which lense can get that.

I would be looking for something that could make the background hold it's own like this.



With an iphone the background always gets reduced in size, how do I keep the background large like that while keeping the foreground normal?

Again thanks for all the responses, they've been very helpful.

Zascar

At the low end of things the is little difference between he cameras, canon nikon etc. The lens is far more important. ou get what you pay for most of the time, but thee are some better value lenses. Try to get a prime (no zoom) the quality is better. The 50mm f1.8 is t bst value lens around.

Also learn ligroom - that really makes the photos 'pop' more than any equipment ever can

wersal gummage

DonalB1 wrote: »

how do I keep the background large like that while keeping the foreground normal?

Do you mean the composition? If so, a dslr will not really help you with that, but will give you more flexibility with lenses, eg a very wide lens or a zoom lens which can help you frame the shot you want. I mainly use prime lenses, which can't be zoomed at all, so you would actually have more flexibility with an iPhone.

wersal gummage

wersal gummage

wersal gummage

wersal gummage

A quick Google search suggests that they are all iPhone images.

OSiriS

DonalB1 wrote: »

With an iphone the background always gets reduced in size, how do I keep the background large like that while keeping the foreground normal?

Sounds like you are talking about lens compression:

https://www.slrlounge.com/lens-compression/

A mobile would have a wide angle lens, so you'd be getting more of the background in the frame, making it appear smaller and further away. A longer focal length from telefocal focal lengths would bring the background in.

For what you described, Any camera with a zoom lens would suit your needs(even a point and shoot). A DSLR or any interchangeable lens camera is more versatile, but it really depends if you need the extra capabilities a dslr would offer.

The camera market is going through transition at the moment, and dslr isn't always the best option for the enthusiast. I'd more advocate going mirrorless unless you specifically require the features of a dslr. For the most part they are smaller and lighter (until you get into the really expensive stuff), so easier to carry with you. The quality of micro four third cameras is great now (Olympus and Panasonic), and probably half the size of a 100d in some cases.

CabanSail

You will probably not get what you want from just buying a new camera until you know more about the process. Putting down cash is the easy part but gaining the knowledge to use the equipment is the hard bit.

If you really want to start to get better photographs then consider joining a local camera club or else buy a good book. The book I like is "Mastering Exposure by David Nightingale". When you have a better understanding you will know the gear that you want/need.


Also what you were looking at in the post about the background is due to a long focal length and telephoto compression.

DonalB1

OSiriS wrote: »

Sounds like you are talking about lens compression:

https://www.slrlounge.com/lens-compression/

That's exactly what I'm talking about, would it be possible to get that with a bridge camera? If not then what lense would I need for a dslr?

Thanks again

CabanSail

A bridge camera is more than adequate.

I would look for one which has a zoom of about 300mm (equiv) or more on the long side. Superzooms are available in Bridge Cameras as they have physically smaller sensor sizes.

DonalB1

CabanSail wrote: »

A bridge camera is more than adequate.

I would look for one which has a zoom of about 300mm (equiv) or more on the long side. Superzooms are available in Bridge Cameras as they have physically smaller sensor sizes.

Do they lose any quality with the zoom or are the the same as using telephoto compression in a dslr?

CabanSail

It depends on the camera for the quality but the leading brands do not sell poor cameras.

Telephoto Compression is not a function of a camera, it is due to maths and optics.

This diagram will illustrate what is happening.



This is the result in an actual set of photo's

DonalB1

CabanSail wrote: »

It depends on the camera for the quality but the leading brands do not sell poor cameras.

Telephoto Compression is not a function of a camera, it is due to maths and optics.

This diagram will illustrate what is happening.



This is the result in an actual set of photo's

That is quite possibly the best reply I've received on here...couldn't break it down any simpler for a novice like myself. Thank you very much for that.

So basically a bridge camera will do the exact same as a dslr for this purpose.

CabanSail

If what you are trying to acheive is telephoto compression then Yes. As long as the focal length is long enough.

DonalB1

CabanSail wrote: »

If what you are trying to acheive is telephoto compression then Yes. As long as the focal length is long enough.

Would a bridge camera achieve telephoto compression?

When you zoom on a bridge camera does it lose quality? I realise the sensors are smaller so the quality isn't as good to begin with but does it lose much quality on zoom??

CabanSail

Telephoto compression is due to the ratios of the distance between the lens, the subject and the background. The composition would be the same if you shot with a Bridge or DSLR from the same position and the same angle of view.


I am assuming you are asking about optical zoom rather than digital zoom. The quality will depend on the lens rather than the type of camera. Where a bridge may fall down is in low light as the smaller sensor will not handle the high ISO as well.

All things considered I think you are looking for a Bridge Camera with a large zoom capability.

ldr

Hello everyone,

this post might sound bit weird but i have to ask to who knows best.

a couple months ago i went to purchase my first DSLR the canon D750 but also had in mind the panasonic gh4 in the end and takes to a good deal i purchased the GH4 which shoots really nice stills and lovely video. with it also both the 12-35mm lumix lenses. dont get me wrong i do like the camera and what i get out of it.

But i do get the filling did i miss out on the DSLR? should i had bought it instead of the GH4? Im not so bothered with 4K shooting, rarely do videos.

Am i missing out on a better still camera? at this point and with the new releases from canon i would consider the 80D or the 77D

Thank you

OSiriS

From what you wrote there, it sounds more like you feel you are somehow missing out on something by not buying a DSLR. That is a common symptom of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) that many photographers suffer from. While it is true that the main strength of the GH4 lies in it's video performance, it is no slouch as a stills camera.

When it comes to considering an upgrade, I feel it is best to consider a camera to be a tool with a well defined performance envelope. Most photographers never exceed the limits of the performance envelope of their camera. If you are thinking of replacing your existing camera, you should first understand your needs as a photographer. Is your current camera limiting you in any way? What exactly do you think the GH4 does not do for you that an 80D will do? Cameras are expensive, so if you are going to part with your cash, make sure it is for a good reason, otherwise that money might be better spent on better lenses for your existing camera.

As an example, I replaced my own camera last year. I started with a Canon 400D back in 2007 with a few decent lenses, upgrades from the kit lenses, but no "L" glass. In decent light the camera takes spectacular images and the quality really stands out on the images I've printed. I had 2 main problems with the camera, though. It does not capture shadow detail to my liking, they would often appear muddy to me. Also the low light performance was not great. So right there I needed a camera with higher dynamic range and better low light capability. Additionally, I was not taking the camera around with me as much as I would have liked because it was quite large and feels heavy after a full day of it on my shoulder.

For a few years I had been thinking of buying the 80D when it would eventually materialise, but ultimately switched brands to buy a Sony 6300 last year, because it ticked all of the boxes on my wishlist.

When you're buying your first camera, the world is your oyster. There is so much choice, and it's hard to make a wrong choice. When you are upgrading from an existing camera, it is more important to understand your needs, be brutally honest when determining if your existing gear is not meeting those needs, then decide what does meet them.

ldr

That was an excellent reply, thank you very much.
really not sure what i am missing from the GH4 maybe is just the idea of a dslr being perfect for taking pictures of my kids and fast moving objects, i did decided to put up for sale the gh4 and replace it with DSLR.