1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Equipment New Camera and Lens Advice

Discussion in 'Photography, Art & Design' started by Xonar, 14 Jan 2010.

  1. Xonar

    Xonar What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    2 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    676
    Likes Received:
    33
    Hi guys

    Basically I've been given a few hundred pounds over Xmas and new year and have been looking to get into photography for quite a while now so I decided to have a look around and see about getting myself an SLR to get things started.

    Now I've been looking and I'm pretty much set on a Canon 350D (I'll be buying the body only) as it's within my price bracket and seems like an excellent choice based on reviews etc. Any have any personal experience with this camera and would it be good for someone starting out?

    Secondly I had heard the stock lens that comes with it isn't particularly special so I was looking at a getting a new one, would anyone have any recommendations on what to look for or any lenses in particular? My budget for that would be around £80-100.

    Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
     
  2. veato

    veato I should be working

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    874
    Likes Received:
    193
    A cheap Canon 50mm prime lens has to be on the shopping list

    Clicky
     
  3. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,708
    Likes Received:
    144
    [Sarcasm]Of course, a 80mm prime is perfect for a guy who doesn't have any experience and isn't even sure what he'll be shooting.[/Sarcasm]

    On a more practical note, start with the kit lens and save some money. You are buying a camera that is 4 1/2 generations out of date. Good to start on, yes; it's perfect. But keep the kit lens, because there isn't any point in upgrading your glass yet. In a year, look back at your images and note where you think the lens was the limiting factor and not the photographer. By then you will have a better idea of what you shoot most, how you like to shoot, and what lens can best let you expand your abilities. At that point, if you find you like a short telephoto that you get with a 50mm on an EF-S body and are finding you like the shallow DOF that comes with it, go for it. But if you don't understand what I just said then you should maybe wait.

    You are on a budget, a tight one at that. The lens he linked to is half of what you have to spend. No point in tossing out money just to find out in 6 months that you bought a lens you never use.
     
  4. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    ^^ +1

    It never ceases to amaze me how many people simply slag off kit lenses without giving it a try - especially people who are new to photography.

    I still use the kit lens that came with the 40D, and to be honest it's not that bad. I'm quite happy with the results I get. Sure, sometimes I find that a couple extra f/stops would have been nice, and every now and then I wish I could either zoom in or out just a touch more. However, for a healthy 90% of my photography, I find that the kit lens suits me just fine.
     
  5. Silver51

    Silver51 I cast flare!

    Joined:
    24 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    2,962
    Likes Received:
    287
    Basically, what Jumeira_Johnny said. The 18-55 zoom that comes with the camera should be okay while you're getting to grips with the camera. I'm still using the one that came with my Pentax most of the time.

    EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, if you're desperate to spend money on your new camera, the first things I'd buy are a decent camera bag and a lens pen.



    .
     
    Last edited: 15 Jan 2010
  6. Xonar

    Xonar What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    2 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    676
    Likes Received:
    33
    Sorry, but I'm in no way am I slagging of the lens, this is simly what I have read online and was the reason I wanted to ask here first to see if this was the case.

    Anywho, thanks for your opinions guys, I may opt for a full kit with the lens to get me started and see how I go from there. As I've said I'm just starting out and am looking for something just to get to grips with this type of photography, hence my budget, like Jumeira_Johnny said, if I feel I'm being limited by my equipment in a year or so's time then I have no problem spending money on an upgrade.
     
  7. smc8788

    smc8788 Multimodder

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    5,974
    Likes Received:
    272
    The problem with that is they're reviewed by professionals, which often skews their perspective on things and they'll inevitably be comparing them with the best glass available, whether they mean to or not, and expect/assume that everyone buying a DSLR also has the funds to buy better glass to go with it.
     
  8. Xonar

    Xonar What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    2 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    676
    Likes Received:
    33
    Thanks for your input, this is the type of information I was looking for. I just didn't want to be putting money into buying something that wasn't considered to be particularly good, but if the opinion is coming from a professional perspective and the lens would infact be suitable for someone just starting out, then I'd be happy to invest in it.
     
  9. PBear23

    PBear23 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    4 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    438
    Likes Received:
    7
    Does it have to be Canon?

    I can recommend the Nikon D40x is of a comparable price and is a fantastic camera! I would say it out performs the 400D.

    Just my 50 pence :thumb:
     
  10. Xonar

    Xonar What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    2 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    676
    Likes Received:
    33
    I had only said the canon as it got some good reviews and had a friend recommend it to me but I'd be open to other options. I'll have a little look online and compare features and which one comes out tops within my budget. Thanks for the advice.
     
  11. Vers

    Vers ...

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2007
    Posts:
    1,537
    Likes Received:
    12
    A 350D+18-55IS would be a good starting point. I owned the body, and it was my first DSLR and a good one at that.
     
  12. puck

    puck What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    12 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a very difficult question to answer and will depend on what kind of photography you will be doing.

    I shoot low light, exclusively gigs, I am not a pro and shoot from the rail not the pit. A high end compact is not BAD and sometimes gives as good results as a low-end SLR. I use a Canon G9, this is getting old but still is very good IMHO it may be worth looking at the newer G11. I have recently purchased an Olympus EP1 with both kit lenses, a 17mm prime and the 14-42mm zoom, this is also very good but may be beyond your price range.

    Both of these cameras are not SLR's but bridge the gap and are referred to as Pro Compacts.

    For examples of the G11 check out http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/powershot_g11/.

    For examples of the EP1 check out http://www.flickr.com/cameras/olympus/e-p1/.

    They should hopefully demonstrate that you don't always have to have an SLR to achieve good results.
     
  13. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,882
    Likes Received:
    89
    The 18-55 kit lens is perfectly fine for starting out. It's nothing special as you've read but that doesn't mean it's a waste of time - with practice, you can get some great photos with it. I used the 18-55 IS lens for quite some time and I learned a lot using it.

    Only after I got to grips with it (and borrowed friends' lenses) did I start adding more lenses to my own collection. There's no point spending more than necessary when you're only starting out because you may find the glass you've bought doesn't fit your requirements, vision or style.
     
  14. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    My apologies. Reading it again, that did come across as a bit aggressive. My comment wasn't really directed at you, but more at the general notion that kit lenses are necessarily that bad. Often I see people talking about things like chromatic aberration, vignetting, and build quality, but in the end I think the majority of bad photos are just bad photos - expensive glass would not have made them better photos. For what it's worth, I've taken my kit lens and the super cheap "Nifty Fifty" across the country a few times, as well as to Russia and Japan. Neither of them have failed, and the "Nifty Fifty" is at least 10 years old now.

    For a professional, being paid to shoot images for publication, I would agree that expensive glass can be a good investment. However, for amateurs the weak point will most likely be skill, rather than gear.
     

Share This Page