Equipment New SLR Camera.

I've been using my old camera 35mm for years, and i wanna go digital SLR

What i want is recommendations factoring in Picture Quality/ Reliability, and not stupid money, Try and keep in below 400 pounds sterling.

Also the manufacturer of the camera also has to have some good zoomage lenses, for my peeping tom activities (j/k) nah its for my geoscience at uni.

Suggestions,

would be willing to purchase off a member here.

thanks

Ali

 

For a good selection of lenses you'd want to go with Nikon or Canon really. They both make plenty of decent telephotos of varying quality/price. For under £400, you could get away with a Canon 350D, maybe a 400D (the 400D would be the best choice if you can get one within your budget). However, factor in a fair bit of cash if you're after a good telephoto - they aren't cheap. On the Nikon side, you could go with a second-hand D50 (I don't think they're produced anymore) or the newer D40(x).

Low-end Canon/Nikon dSLRs don't differ that much really; the image quality is going to be a huge improvement over a compact no matter whether you go Canon or Nikon. The best course of action might be to go to Jessops or somewhere similar, and ask to try a few cameras out. Having a camera with good image quality, but is far too small to be comfortable (ahem 400D) might put you off, so it's best to see which one you prefer handling.

 

CANON EOS 400D Cheesecake!!!

 

I would look at the Canon 400d a quick look on google shows you can get the basic kit for less than 400 quid.

http://www.digitalrev.com/en/product_details.php?item_id=1194&category_id= (I've had good dealings with their ebay store) As for a good budget tele lens I'm a fan of the Sigma 70-300 4-5.6

http://www.digitalrev.com/en/product_details.php?item_id=388&category_id=145

460 quid for that lot, and I cant see you needing too much else to keep you amused.

 

its just for photographing exposures (as in exposed rock surfaces) that i can't reach without rock climbing etc the lens.

My Nikon EM has served me well, but the light meter is going on it.

The Eos400 certainly was a consideration bit more than i'd like to spend, but perhaps if i wait amonth it might go down.

Could someone explain all these lens terms like number of blades, and angular resolution, i've never been huge on the terminology, i just got the hang of it by trial and error on my current 75-150

Thanks for the help still wont get a handling anything like on my Nikon EM which was a beauty to use

 

I've got no idea what angular resolution is, or how the number of blades affects a photo. Honestly if you're just buying a cheap dSLR then I doubt it makes much difference to your photos. Also, why not just buy a second-hand Nikon EM if you're already familiar with it?

 

Warehouseexpress will do you a Nikon D40X plus AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II for £410 after the Nikon cashback promotion.
It's also worth having a trawl through their specials & bargains sections e.g. I know that they have a couple of Sony A100 kits for £360 or so (mail order returns but they have full warranty).

 

The aperture in the lens is made by a set of overlapping blades.
As a result in close up shots, the out of focus area will be smother when using a lens with more blades. The less blades there are will make objects in the off focus area more angular.

 

Cause its a pain having them developed and getting new films etc, and most stuff i write up is done on the pc, so id just like plug in and upload.

Thanks think i have a better idea of the working now thanks =]

 

If you already have a bunch of Nikon lenses from your EM, then your best bet is probably going to be a second hand D50 (the D40(x) probably wont work with the older lenses as it doesn't have an internal focusing motor IIRC).

I have a D50, and love the size/weight, and like being able to pick up older lenses on ebay for very little.

 

Well, you have a 35mm SLR - so what brand is it? What lenses does it take? And then the second question to ask yourself is how many lenses do you have, are they autofocus, and if you want to replace them?

Generally, recommendations here will fall into either Nikon or Canon. I can't see a difference in a Nikon shot photo or a Canon shot photo, so I really think all that technobabble about which is better is really just preference. I personally like Canon because my first dSLR was a Canon (I was led to believe it was better - more on that later), and I have become accustomed to the way it handled. Now that I have a small collection of Canon lenses, unless Nikon has a damn good reason to, I will probably stick with Canon since a switch would mean replacing all my lenses.

Now, onto my wrong assumptions when purchasing my dSLR.

Like anybody, I read every review or comparison between sub-$1000 dSLRs out there. I didn't know a thing about photography - I just wanted manual focus and manual shutter speed (that was before I found out that shutter speed has limitations like ISO and aperture). Anyways, I decided it was going to be a dSLR, so I read reviews, looked on DPReview.com, and looked very closely at the sample pictures. Canon was sharper than all the other brands of a similar price.

I made a lucky choice with Canon. Had I have seen sharper images on a Pentax, I'd be stuck with one now. The mistake I made was assuming that the image quality came from the Camera - it didn't. It came from the lenses. Looking back at DPReview's samples now, most of those sharp images were taken with expensive lenses which were a far cry from the one bundled with the camera.

The camera only provides 2 things in terms of image quality - noise handling and megapixels. There's a tiny debate as to if megapixels mean much. I think they don't, as a 12 MP compact camera will still give bad photos compared to a 6 MP D50 - but there's nothing wrong with low noise, and extra megapixels. Noise handling has to do with the camera's sensor. At the time of my buying, Canon had better noise handling.

The rest of the stuff is pretty much just features like AF points, sensor-cleaning etc. If you think about it, back in film days, the difference between $300 SLRs and $3000 SLRs were features. They both could take the same type of film. Features is something you'll have to decide for yourself how much you wish to invest in - but in digital world, dSLRs do differ in their sensor technology.

On lenses, the bundled-with kit lense will be fine, but not ideal if you want those low, natural-lit portraits with the fabled background blur everybody loves. The cheapest lense ever, one I recommend to any dSLR owner of any budget, would be the 50mm F/1.8 (Canon and Nikon both make these for very cheap).

 

they are based in hong kong (or something like that) it will take ages to arrive and cost a bundle to get sent out! my sis bought it from them i dooooo not reccomend them!!! (both me and my sis have the 400d! buy it and you will be very happy!!! )