Should I buy a decent camera?

[GeorgeStorm]

Just took the plunge on a 550D with kit lens at £350

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Just took the plunge on a 550D with kit lens at £350

have fun mate! CANON FTW!

[kalniel]

Just took the plunge on a 550D with kit lens at £350

Excellent. Now get out there and enjoy it.

CANON FTW!

Oh dear...

[GeorgeStorm]

You bet I will
Hopefully will arrive Friday which will mean a busy weekend

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It might be too late,but the Canon Refurb shop items seem to be brand new if they are listing many examples of the same items.

[GeorgeStorm]

It is indeed too late, money has already left my account.
Not too bothered, from the photos I've seen, and description, seems in pretty much perfect condition.
I'm sure I'll be happy with it, and the £30 saved can go into my lens fund

Edit:
Got confused between ebay shops there, sadly the official canon shop didn't have any cameras apart from the 1000D and 7D, although they do have:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EF-5...item5ae5ec4bae
Which I believe is meant to be a pretty good allround lens for the price? (quite possible I could be mistaken since there are soo many )

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Oh dear...

Kalniel FTW!!!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The 50MM will be a nice lens in low light and for taking pictures of faces due to the narrow depth of field afforded by a large aperture.

In the past the store has sold a few telephoto zooms for around £100 to £150.

You need to identify what kind of pictures you want to take.

[GeorgeStorm]

I can see myself using the 50mm quite a bit if it's good for those kinda things. Since I reckon I will be taking a fair few photos of family and friends, and do enjoy night riding, and so taking the camera with me on those would be awesome.
Can't see myself getting a telephoto lens really, due to the size, and I wouldn't really have the need.
A macro lens is the other type of lens I would like to get in the future I think.

Edit:
Any macro lenses in particular people would recommend I start saving for?

[Bobster]

I can see myself using the 50mm quite a bit if it's good for those kinda things. Since I reckon I will be taking a fair few photos of family and friends, and do enjoy night riding, and so taking the camera with me on those would be awesome.
Can't see myself getting a telephoto lens really, due to the size, and I wouldn't really have the need.
A macro lens is the other type of lens I would like to get in the future I think.

Edit:
Any macro lenses in particular people would recommend I start saving for?

how close you want to be when taking macro?

Canon 100mmL is a cracking bit of glass

[g8ina]

I will always recommend the Tamron 90mm - 2nd hand. I paid £140 for mine. See my Flickr pages for images

[GeorgeStorm]

Well, pretty close
Closer than the kit lens can do obviously, and would have to be by a fair bit to make it worth investing in.
g8ina, is that the lens you used to take the picture of that ladybird in the photo a day thread? That looked pretty awesome!

[g8ina]

Yep

[FatalSaviour]

how close you want to be when taking macro?

Canon 100mmL is a cracking bit of glass

Indeed it is - I'm not sure what the OP's budget is, but I'd also throw the Canon 100mm f/2.8 (non-L) in the mix there too. Used prices I've seen for the non-L range between £250-£300, whereas the L seems to command around a £300 premium on this, depending on it's condition.
Neither's cheap admittedly, and I did like the hybrid-IS on the L for framing my shots, but managed to get a good deal on a new non-L, so ended up going for that. It's a cracking lens, and also pretty good for a medium telephoto on a crop sensor!

There's also the Canon 60mm Macro to consider OP, but it's EF-S mount only - perhaps not a problem if you're not expecting to upgrade to full-frame at any point, but this could affect its resale value too (less serious photographers looking to buy these).
It's also not as versatile. I know you said you didn't expect a telephoto to be particularly useful, but at least with the 100mm, you have *some* versatility. The focal length of the 60mm will be rather close to your 50mm prime, and this also requires a shorter working distance (9cm if I recall) which could be an issue in some situations.

Hope this helps!

[GeorgeStorm]

I know I said a telephoto wouldn't be overly useful, but to be fair, I'm already wanting something longer than 55, so I wouldn't be completely against it.
Only issue with macro lenses are they do seem to be rather pricey, and maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how do the min focusing lengths work? Since I had a quick google, and I think I read the kit lens can do 0.35m, and the 100 L lens does 0.3, that's not a lot of difference??

I watched the video review of the L vs non L 100m macro by digitalrev, and unless I found the L at a very good price, would most likely go for the standard one.

[FatalSaviour]

I know I said a telephoto wouldn't be overly useful, but to be fair, I'm already wanting something longer than 55, so I wouldn't be completely against it.
Only issue with macro lenses are they do seem to be rather pricey, and maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how do the min focusing lengths work? Since I had a quick google, and I think I read the kit lens can do 0.35m, and the 100 L lens does 0.3, that's not a lot of difference??

I watched the video review of the L vs non L 100m macro by digitalrev, and unless I found the L at a very good price, would most likely go for the standard one.

The Digital Picture - great site by the way gives the minimum focusing distance of the 18-55 IS II as 28cm, which yields a maximum magnification of 0.28x. This means that a subject can be rendered at .28x life-size onto a sensor. While not a macro lens figure, .28x is very useful for flowers and other moderately small subjects. The IS II actually actually has the MFD as 25cm on the side, so it'll be slightly higher than this.

The MFD of the 100mm is 30cm, as you correctly stated, but it's also a 100mm focal length. This gives a MM of 1x, so the image that the sensor sees is going to be a lot higher.

I appreciate that this is all starting to get quite technical - and one thing I've certainly learned with macro photography is that it can take quite a few failed photos before you've got the technique nailed down! It's an expensive craft, and other complications (such as sometimes needing a flash, as you might be working at narrow apertures (f/10 etc) don't help!

I feel that I should probably mention at this stage then that there are two other options for non-professional macro work - extension tubes and close-up lenses.

These are both things that I considered when I bought my 100mm - the close up lenses I felt were too expensive (and only fit the diameter lens that you bought it for, unless you use step up adapter rings), and some of the cheaper extension tubes didn't have electrical contacts (so you can't set aperture etc on modern lenses). A decent set of tubes with contacts will still work out significantly cheaper than a true macro lens (£120 on Amazon) and you may well find that the image quality is acceptable for your own uses.

I'd recommend reading reviews of all the options, and seeing what your budget (and enthusiasm!) allow. I certainly never imagined spending as much as I have when I bought my 550D 2 years ago.
£2600 on lenses later (not to mention accessories!), it's definitely a hobby that I won't be dropping any time soon! :-S