Equipment Best Camera for £500

Got some Christmas money so decided I want a proper camera to get the companies instagram going.

I have about £500 to spend can go higher if needs be. I will be mainly taking photos of cars on race tracks and up close at car meets and exhibitions.

I am new to proper photography so a link to a guide on the basics will also help.

Thanks

 

I'm not gonna suggest a particular make, model or even type, but just bear in mind camera's drop rapidly in price, so you can easily get caught up looking for the best only to see it plummet in value over the next 12-18 months.

 

If you are talking DSLR, then pick a mid-range body and spend your money on the glass (the lenses)...

 

If your shooting at a track, then reach will be your main goal (longer focal lengths) which can end up expensive.

However if its mostly static up close shots of cars etc then theres lots of decent options.

I do bikes at the track. see www.polarityphoto.co.uk

 

If you are new to "proper photography" then IMO you should be starting with entry level gear. I now use a Nikon D3200 having previously owned professional level gear, and to be honest even entry level DSLRs have the potential to produce stunning results. You don't even need expensive lenses (I use a kit lens and an "old" 50mm prime).

If you have £500 available I'd spec £300-350 for a good entry level DSLR and the remaining £150-200 you can spend on a telephoto zoom lens for track. There are a number of relatively good "all purpose" lenses out there but the drawback is that they can make even a small camera very bulky.

 

Good, long and fast glass is expensive. But, you can get reasonable results with reasonable gear. I took a Pentax K5 and Pentax 55-300 to Silverstone and was pleasantly surprised with the shots I was able to get.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pentax_phil/albums/72157651932160412

That lens has been as low as £199 recently which I think is a bargain for what you get.

 

If you're looking for something relatively compact and light to carry, maybe consider a nice mirrorless camera like the Sony a6000. Together with its two kit zoom lenses it should be about your budget.

 

thanks for the suggestions.

Had a little look on some reviews and amazon, and found this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-ILCE60...TF8&qid=1449774158&sr=8-2&keywords=sony+a6000

But does it have the reach? what spec lens would you guys recommend that i need? 55-300mm?

Am I limited by lens choice with the sony? and should I look at the Nikon D3300?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-D3300...F8&qid=1449774320&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+d3300
with a 55-300 lens?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-..._UL160_SR160,160_&refRID=1W488CP3YGT6ZACCS4Y4

Also why would you want/not want mirror less camera?

Also I thought in this comparison the sony looks a lot better than the Nikon
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a6000/12

What are your thoughts?

 

For the a6000 I quickly checked eBay when I made my post and it was ~530 there IIRC. Amazon is more expensive apparently.

Yes, the rather small lens lineup is probably the a6000's greatest weakness. Other than that it's really a great camera (a ton of functionality, easy to learn, great image quality).
I don't know if 210mm (336mm equivalent) is long enough for your needs, some other members with experience shooting race tracks will probably be able to answer that question. If you need great longer and/or faster teles than the ones Sony offers, Nikon's probably your best bet in any case. Their lens selection is massive and ever expanding.


Some mirrorless pros and cons:
+ Compact and light cameras and lenses, without any loss in quality versus a DSLR
+ Electronic viewfinder (EVF) instead of optical (OVF) (you're looking at a digital screen instead of an image reflected through a mirror and a prism) *
+ No mirror (obviously). No mirror slap, no mechanical problems possible there, and often faster burst rate (a ridiculous 11FPS on the a6000 vs 4.9FPS on the D3300, coupled with a larger buffer that takes 26 RAW files before halting, vs 5)
(+ Pretty much all lenses ever made for any camera system are adaptable, albeit with manual focus and/or aperture. This is my main reason for liking them )

- Shorter battery life (always carry a spare battery just in case)
- EVF instead of OVF *
- Probably less robust against dropping
- Sometimes slower autofocus, though this has already improved massively over the last few years, with several manufacturers even claiming that their autofocus is faster than that of DSLRs. I'd say DSLRs in general are still "snappier" and more dependable though.

* EVF vs OVF mostly comes down to personal taste. Just like the autofocus, EVFs in mirrorless camera's have improved a lot, and most new EVFs have a high refresh rate and little to no lag. The advantage of an EVF is that unlike OVFs you see exactly what your camera will capture, which is convenient for exposure etc. Disadvantage is of course that when the camera is off, the EVF is off too.
Personally I wouldn't want to go back to an OVF, but I know a lot of people swear by them.

I'm probably a bit biased in favour of mirrorless cameras though (went from a Canon 600D to a Fuji X-E1). Other members can probably name pros and cons I haven't thought of.


The a6000 might be a fantastic camera, but if you need the extra reach the D3300 might still be the better choice for you. AFAIK all of Sony's very long teles (300mm and up) are in their older A mount, and I don't know if the autofocus using an adapter is any good.

---

EDIT:
Another thought: Micro Four Thirds cameras might also be worth investigating. They are also super compact and light, the newer ones have good autofocus, a lot of telephotos are available (the crop factor is x2, so even an effective 600mm lens is not ridiculously expensive), and there's an abundance of affordable compatible lenses in general.
Main weaknesses are less depth of field effects (background blurring/bokeh) to play with, and generally somewhat weaker performance in dark conditions, but neither are a problem on the race track I think.
The Olympus ones have great in-camera image stabilisation too (effective for all lenses!).

 

Well I have looked into the cameras more and decided on either the sony a6000 or the Nikon D5500. I was wondering how much the adapter lens kits change the photo quality?
Use this? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Proper-Auto...1449862795&sr=1-3&keywords=sony+a6000+adapter

Then I don't have to worry about the limited lens choice. But is the photo quality affected?

 

As long as there's no glass (lenses) in the adapter, the photo quality should be completely unaffected. The main problem with this kind of autofocus adapters is that they usually don't focus very quickly, especially the cheaper ones. From what I've seen it often takes a few seconds (instead of milliseconds) to get the focus right, so I'm not sure if it'll be usable on the race track.
In the future they'll probably get better, but right now I'm not sure any of them (even the very expensive ones) focus anywhere near as fast as the native speeds.

 

Ok then looks like I am getting a D5500, now just need to know what lens I need.

 

I've got the a6000 and it's a fantastic bit of kit, it really is, it does have it's issues though; It's the quickest focusing Mirrorless camera (supposedly and or was) but it's still slower than a DSLR, even if I compare it to my old 600d it's slower. It's not a deal breaker to me, and I've certainly not regretted selling my DSLR for the Sony, but it is something to think about.

Sam

 

Well after even more reading. http://www.speedhunters.com/tag/photo-101/

I am still undecided...

I am now looking at Canon or the Sony a6000. The thing is the canon is better, but the sony is so small, usable and capable I can use it for more things, like when I go on my skiing holiday.

The question is do I buy the Canon take amazing shots, and I will buy the Sony anyway later down the line because its so usable. Or do I buy the Sony first because its so usable and upgrade to canon.

Had a quick look on gumtree, I am able to buy a Canon 40D, Canon 17-40 f/4, Canon 24-105 f/4 and Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for £850.

Which would be keeping with in the idea of cheap body and expensive lenses.

 

I don't think you can go wrong with either choice, The Canon would be an excellent choice with that selection of lenses, the 24-105 is a heavy lens though, but it was my favourite lens and was used for over 90% of my photo's. The size and weight is the sole reason for going mirrorless, and price is the reason i went for the a6000 and not the a7.

If you've got a camera shop near by it may well be worth popping in and trying out the different camera's that you've been looking at.

Sam

 

Canon has great lenses, and a lot of them too. Either would be a good choice.

There are a few things to keep in mind about the Canon 40D though, mostly because it's an 8 year old camera.
- Be sure to ask for the shutter count before buying! If it's been heavily used and the shutter count is above 100.000, the mechanism will likely be pretty worn out. Some survive for much, much longer, but shutter repair or replacement is expensive (most likely more expensive than the camera itself), so it's best to inform yourself beforehand and know what the chances of failure are.
- Its sensor's "only" 10 Mpx, which isn't huge nowadays. Mostly this means less leeway to crop. You'll have to decide if it's enough for you.
- The higher ISO performance (when in darker conditions) won't be spectacular. (Generally, the newer the camera, the better this gets.) You'll have noticeable noise at ISO 800 and higher.
Since the included zoom lenses aren't very fast/bright either (f/4 at their brightest) I suggest also investing in a cheap "nifty-fifty" 50mm f/1.8 or brighter (f/1.4 or if you have too much money f/1.2) for darker conditions. This will allow you to lower the ISO and avoid the noise. Also they have fancier looking depth of field/"bokeh" which a lot of people like .

Of course there's also the option of upgrading your camera to a newer model down the line if you feel it's limiting you, and you can keep the lenses. Lenses don't "age" nearly as fast as camera bodies do.


I also +1 Sam for checking them out at a camera store, so you know what feels right for you. It could very well be you don't mind the extra weight of a DSLR, or even prefer the heft and grip.

 

Think I will get the Canon.

Yes I am aware of the limited aperture on the lenses I mentioned. A lot of car photographers say the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is a must have but it is £940, and there is no way I can justify to buy that straight off. I will look into the "nifty-fifty".

I will also get details on the 40D, only reason for me to buy it is because its a good cheap body, and just want to get going with the photography first then I will for sure upgrade it once I am in July or so. I will be being payed for my photography work, so I can invest all that money back into the photography side of things.

 

There's a 700d with stock 18-55mm in the marketplace right now, Worth considering maybe?

Sam

 

Yeah I saw that, but wanted to spend my budget on lenses mostly. But thanks for the heads up.

In the end I offered £825 for the Canon 40D, Canon 17-40 f/4, Canon 24-105 f/4 and Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, and I will pick it up next Saturday.

I want to get shooting as soon as possible before the race season really starts kicking off. I will also later down the line look at getting a "nifty-fifty", Canon 5D mkII or Canon 7D and then the must have 70-200 f/2.8. But I will see how I get on, and upgrade appropriately.

Now that I got the main hardware sorted for now, what about accessories and software? What is the best free editing software?

 

One thing to bear in mind which holds a lot of truth in my opinion - the best camera is the one you have with you. This is the reason a lot of people are trading in their DSLRs for mirrorless systems recently - the cameras and lenses are just so much smaller and lighter. That, and the fact that mirrorless systems are so much more capable now (a lot of them now use phase/hybrid AF, the main area they have tradionally fallen behind DSLRs) that they often give just as good results as DSLRs. If you can't get decent shots from one of the higher end mirrorless cameras then chances are the problem is behind the camera rather than the camera itself being the limiting factor.

The 40D is a large camera and those are all large lenses so you'll need to weigh up whether you actually want to take a large camera bag full of gear with you whenever you want to take some photos, or have something you can just chuck in a backpack.

I also disagree that the Canon is the better camera. I think for the most part the Sony would give you better results since it is so much newer - certainly the high ISO capabilities and resolution will be much better and there are always situations you need to bump the ISO a bit or crop into a photo. DSLRs are still relevant for professionals and sports shooters but IMO for the hobbyists mirrorless systems are where it's at.

Edit: didn't read the first post if you will be shooting motorsports a DSLR may be the better option as they have more decent options for telephoto lenses and the added size and weight will offer a bit more stability and ease of handling.