SLR advice needed

[GSte]

I'm thinking about getting a Canon 450D as they are doing £50 cashback at the moment. Could anyone let me know if:

a) This is a decent camera?
b) I should bother buying it with the 18-55mm IS (or with that and the 55-250mm IS) lens?
c) What sort of lenses I should be looking to purchase, if not the two above?

My uses will be fairly broad, I photograph landscapes a lot, would like something that can get good night shots, would LOVE to get into macro, and also like photographing people. Oh, and I love the current 18x optical zoom on the bridge I own at the moment.

I have about £400 to spend on the body, and am not sure about a lens budget...... ideally I'd like something with a fair bit of zoom for starters, and then would be willing to buy a lens specifically for macro if need be.... I suppose I want to buy some lenses that are good value for money, but I have no idea how much they cost really.......

In case you hadn't guessed I'm a total noob really...... so any help would be greatly appreciated.

[colmo]

The Canon 450D, like all the current dSLRs, is more than enough camera for a self-confessed noob such as yourself - I would suggest you handle one before committing, though.

The lion's share of your budget should really go towards lenses - the camera will devalue much like a computer, but (good) lenses are (nearly) forever.

How much does the 18-55mm IS add to the price? Considering that you can get a 3rd party 17-50mm (Tamron) or 18-50mm (Sigma) f2.8 lens for £260-290, I wouldn't pay more than half that for the 18-55mm IS. If you want a greater zoom range, the Tamron 18-250mm or Sigma 18-200mm OS might interest you; be aware of the compromises to image quality megazooms bring, which would negate some of the advantages of a dSLR's large, high-megapixel sensor. Check out some lens reviews here:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Cano...20Lens%20Tests

Before committing to a dedicated new or used macro lens (regardless of brand or focal length, they are nearly all excellent), you might want to try experimenting with a two-element screw-on close-up adapter, Raynox close-up filter and/or some extension tubes first.

If/when you do buy a macro lens, consider what your working distance will be - a 50mm macro gets you really close, which is fine for coins, stamps, miniatures etc, a 180mm will give you some distance, which is great for skittish insects, and something in between (like a 70mm, 90mm or 105mm) is a good allrounder which doubles as a fine portrait lens (in the film days, lenses of 85mm-135mm where considered to be the usual range for portraiture - to maintain the same field of view, you'd need lenses of 58mm-90mm on APS-C sensor cameras like the 450D).

Finally, find a Canon-specific forum, which can point you in the direction of some of the best value pieces of kit - for instance, the 70-200mm f4 L (lenses designated L are the top grade in Canon lenses) can be had for under £400, which is about as cheap as you'll get for a pro-grade telephoto lens.

[BUFF]

Originally Posted by GSte

I'm thinking about getting a Canon 450D as they are doing £50 cashback at the moment.

imo that on it's own isn't a sufficient reason to buy it over any other DSLR.
As colmo suggested I would get to a shop & try handling various models from various manufacturers & if it happens that the 450D is your favourite then it's a bonus.

& as mentioned lens costs will outweigh body costs especially if you get addicted

[j.o.s.h.1408]

I would suggest getting the canon 400d. its about £100 cheaper and i think it still has that £50 cashback offer too.

when entering the world of DSLR, spend most of your money on lens's not on the body itself . get the 400d and use the extra 150 on a decent lens and you wont regret it. i wished i had just bought the body with no lens has the stock lens are rubbish

[Bobster]

Originally Posted by j.o.s.h.1408

i wished i had just bought the body with no lens has the stock lens are rubbish

they serve their purpose

[ACiD303]

The stock lens maybe rubbish, certainly the lowest out of the other majors (Nikon, Sony) but I've seen some shots taken with them that I was surprised to learn it was with the kit lens. They weren't astonishing, but I guess it's more to do with how they've been used I guess. I barely used mine over a few shots.

Having a feel for the body is important - I was going to buy a 400D initially, but I eventually bought a 2nd hand 30D for much the same price because of the extra weight and grip - and it was kinda like an ergonomic version of the previous film camera I had (EOS 630). I know someone that was hell bent on buying a 400D as well, but in the end bought a Sony because he realised a 400D wasn't all that and would rather pay less for more value (in-body stabilisation, better kit lens etc.).

I actually wish I paid less and got a 20D because then I could've afforded better lenses, but I have to say the 450D is a nice bit of kit

[j.o.s.h.1408]

that will sort out the weight and grip

[colmo]

Originally Posted by j.o.s.h.1408

that will sort out the weight and grip

The cost of a 450D + grip is getting a bit close to the cost of a 40D; for this reason, and the fact there are more immediately required accessories, the cost of the grip is hard to justify (IMHO).

[MaddAussie]

Canon have just released the 1000D, it might be worth a look

See here

[GSte]

Thanks for all the advice so far. Half the reason I was looking at the 450D was that I wanted to be able to get some largish prints of my photos, and I know it has a 12.2 megapixel sensor..... will that enable me to print them much bigger than a 10 megapixel one?

The stock lens (18-55mm IS) is £50 Colmo.... should I bother? The 55-250mm IS is another £180 on top of that............ I take it I should definitely give that one a miss?

[Clunk]

I have the 55-250mm and it's excellent for the money. Build quality isn't the best, but the picture quality is great, especially on outdoor and well lit shots, which I think is what you will be doing?

If you buy from onestop-digital, you can pick it up for £155 delivered within a couple of days.

[GSte]

Can I borrow yours instead?

Oooohhhhh....... I crack myself up.

But seriously, is that what you took the rat shots with?

[Bobster]

i print my 8.2 20D files @ 18x12 regularly and have had prints @ 30x20.. 12mpix is more than enough for your needs..

i'd even go as far as to say that 10mpix will suit your needs (will happily do a billboard)

at the end of the day its not about the mega pixels, its about the quality of the image..

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by GSte

....... Half the reason I was looking at the 450D was that I wanted to be able to get some largish prints of my photos, and I know it has a 12.2 megapixel sensor..... will that enable me to print them much bigger than a 10 megapixel one?

Not really, no.

Consider the following :-

30D - 8 MP - 3504 x 2336
40D - 10MP - 3888 x 2592
450D - 12 MP - 4272 x 2848

Now, you've taken some pictures, and you come to print. What resolution do you print at? It's not easy to give a firm answer to the "optimum" output resolution, because it depends on the technology used to print. Most people print on inkjet printers, and the method used (stochastic dithering) means that there is no fixed, and/or known relationship between input pixels from the image, and the dots laid down by the printer. The exact relationship between those two tends to be very carefully guarded between the manufacturers.

So .... we end up with a subjective assessment of "optimum" by looking at the effect of various output res settings on the image quality of the print.

Most expert opinion is that the optimum output res is 300dpi at the very most. And further, there's a substantial body of opinion that says that 200dpi will be just fine, unless perhaps you've got a very demanding use for that print, such as a very picky photo competition.

I haven't personally done the tests on recent printers, but I have done it in the past (on hogh end photo inkjets), and the results were that almost nobody could tell the difference between prints at 200 dpi and higher, and those that could also felt the difference in image quality was very small.

Next, consider what you do with prints? Larger prints, by which I mean A3 or so (let alone above) are typically going to be hung on a wall and admired from a distance. It's a simple fact of the performance of the human eye that a minor quality loss that you might see if you're holding a print in your hands you won't see if you've hung it on the wall and are looking at it from several feet away.

So .... the larger the print, the lower the res can be, for almost all uses, without there being a visible reduction in image quality.

So, my suggestion is that you do a few prints, even at A4, at 200 dpi, and then print those same images at 300dpi, and see if you can tell the difference. Then, look at those prints from a few feet away, and see if you can tell the difference? If you can't, and I'd guess you won't, then printing at 300 dpi gains you nothing over 200 dpi.

So, assume you'll use 200 dpi, and look back at that set of cameras.

30D - 8 MP - 3504 x 2336 at 200 dpi = 17.5" x 11.7"
40D - 10MP - 3888 x 2592 at 200 dpi = 19.4" x 13"
450D - 12 MP - 4272 x 2848 at 200 dpi = 21.4" x 14.2"

And, if you use that 10MP 40D image at 180 dpi, you get an image 21.6" x 14.4".

So, some questions for you :-

1) Is 17.5" x 11.7" (i.e. roughly 18x12) large enough for you? If not, what printer will you be using?

2) Can you tell the difference, from a print hung on the wall, between a 450D 12.2MP image at 200dpi, and a 40D 10MP image at 180dpi? Are you good, and super-critical enough, enough to notice the impact of that 20dpi drop in output resolution?

3) Just how large do you want to print? Because unless it's pretty large, you'll get very modest benefit from 12.2MP over 8MP, let alone over 10MP.


The main benefit, to be honest, of the larger resolutions is that it allows a greater degree of digital enlargement without reducing image quality. In other words, you can take a larger image, crop it and dump a larger proportion of the image you captured, before that loss of actual image resolution starts to bite home. But the answer to that is to improve your photographic technique and frame the shot right in the first place.

Larger resolutions have advantages, but we've reached the point with ANY of the above cameras, where the benefits from ever-larger image resolutions is increasingly modest. Largely, it's marketing hype enjoyed by camera manufacturers, because if they can convince, for example, a 30D owner that he needs (or more realistically, wants) higher resolution, they get to sell another new camera.

And increased resolution has a downside, too. The images take up more space on your memory cards, and they take longer to write to them, so unless camera processing power and internal buffer memory goes up accordingly, increasing resolution reduces "motor drive" capability.

Unless you have very specific reasons, I'd suggest that you think hard before putting an extra couple of MP on resolution very high up your criteria list when selecting a camera. In large part, it's marketing cobblers.

[colmo]

Originally Posted by GSte

The stock lens (18-55mm IS) is £50 Colmo.... should I bother? The 55-250mm IS is another £180 on top of that............ I take it I should definitely give that one a miss?

You decide:
Photozone.de 18-55mm IS review
Photozone.de 55-250mm IS review

Be aware that all lens reviews are subject to sample variation.

[GSte]

I don't know what to say Saracen other than......wow. Thanks for going to the trouble of writing that reply. My neighbour has an A2 photo printer that he said I can use, but I have no idea which model it is, I think it's an Epson and cost him about £900..... anyway I was going to use Snapfish for larger prints, so thought the extra resolution may count..... perhaps not though. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't spend £250 on a camera body only to find that I should have spent £400 (which I can afford) and regret not doing so. I like getting the best 'bang for buck' in general......