DSLR advice needed

[GSte]

I'm finally getting round to buying a DSLR but as I'm a complete newbie am unsure what to choose from the bewildering array of camera bodies and (even more bewildering) lenses..... thought I'd see if any of you knowledgable chaps can offer any advice.

My budget is around £600, and for various reasons I can get a UK model 500D with stock 18-55 lens, 70-300mm Sigma and lowepro bag for that price.....

Just really wondering if I should go for that, or if buying a cheaper body and better lenses would be more sensible (considering that I'm saving at least £100 with that bundle.....). I'll have another £350 available for lenses in a few months, so could get the 500D bundle then one decent lens later...

I mainly photograph landscapes, buildings and wildlife, so having some decent zoom is necessary.

Muchos gracias for any advice.

[kalniel]

1) Any modern camera will suit your uses, within budget, no problem. They all have the equivalent of dual kit lenses available.

2) The quality of all modern cameras is as close to equal as to make no real world difference with sensible lenses.

3) All modern cameras feel completely different from each other! Get to a shop and try them.

If you had said you were specifically doing a lot of indoor and low light shots without flash then I'd have pushed you towards a system with room to buy a cheap prime, like the 450D dual kit + 50mm f/1.8.

If you had said you wanted a small and light system to carry around I've have pushed you towards something like the Oly E620 dual kit.

If you had said you already had lots of lenses from a particular system I'd push you towards that...

but you've not, so you've not got any restrictions at all!

Look at:

Canon 450D + 18-55IS + 55-250IS
Canon 500D + 18-55IS + 70-300 sigma (non IS I presume?)
Olympus E620 (IS) + 14-42 + 40-150
Nikon D60 + 18-55VR + 55-200VR
Sony A350 (IS) + 18-55 + 55-200

In a shop and see how they feel. If any are over budget then just haggle and you'll be able to get them in or get stuff thrown in for free - local shops are ace at this compared to online.

[stavroshamster]

I would go for the 450D rather than the 500D and save yourself some money for lens/flash etc - unless you are wanting to use the video capabilities of the 500D, which I personally wouldn't need.

[GSte]

Originally Posted by kalniel

If you had said you were specifically doing a lot of indoor and low light shots without flash then I'd have pushed you towards a system with room to buy a cheap prime, like the 450D dual kit + 50mm f/1.8.

If you had said you wanted a small and light system to carry around I've have pushed you towards something like the Oly E620 dual kit.

Canon 450D + 18-55IS + 55-250IS
Canon 500D + 18-55IS + 70-300 sigma (non IS I presume?)
Olympus E620 (IS) + 14-42 + 40-150
Nikon D60 + 18-55VR + 55-200VR
Sony A350 (IS) + 18-55 + 55-200

Cheers for the detailed reply mate, I did forget to stipulate that I'll be carrying whatever I buy with me up mountains, so weight might be a consideration...

Also would like to take low-light outdoor shots and even night shots if possible...

[Bobster]

possible bargain be quick

[GSte]

Think 2 hours remaining is a bit too quick for me, would like to consider this a bit longer as I don't really know what I'm doing or should be looking for, but thanks for finding it.

[HSK]

I'd go for a 450D with the 18-55 Is kit lens, the 55-250 IS and get hold of a 50 f1.8

[Bobster]

9 days

[GSte]

Cheers.... still a bit confused about which lenses I should be going for.... from what I've read, for my needs a wide-angle and a zoom would be okay as starters.....?

Does IS make a huge difference when using a Canon? I must admit, I don't have the steadiest hand in the world.....

Also, should I buy a UV filter for every lens as well?

[unreal]

Would a 30D be much of an upgrade in comparison to a 400D?

EDIT: Actually scrap that, had a look around - it's decent but not worth the effort of selling mine and upgrading!

[Moby-Dick]

Originally Posted by HSK

I'd go for a 450D with the 18-55 Is kit lens, the 55-250 IS and get hold of a 50 f1.8

Pretty much what I've just got - althought my tele lens is an EF....must justify buying Clunk's IS one... woudl it make that much difference ?

[kalniel]

Originally Posted by GSte

Cheers for the detailed reply mate, I did forget to stipulate that I'll be carrying whatever I buy with me up mountains, so weight might be a consideration...

Also would like to take low-light outdoor shots and even night shots if possible...

Well the Oly is the best by some way for weight - even if the body is not much lighter than the others, it's the lenses for it that make the difference.

Night shots.. are generally dark enough that you're talking non-hand-holdable shutter lengths so a tripod is more important than any particular camera model (my P&S takes great night shots as long as I leave the shutter open long enough!)

Low light outdoor shots are usually okay on all systems as well. It's really indoor shots that require a prime that gathers light easily. (Following is hand-held with my Oly E620, kit lens)

Originally Posted by GSte

Cheers.... still a bit confused about which lenses I should be going for.... from what I've read, for my needs a wide-angle and a zoom would be okay as starters.....?

Well on these DSLRs we're not really talking wide-angle - the first zoom of a kit is just slightly wide to short telephoto (ie, a normal angle of view with scope for framing really), the second zoom of the kit is a proper telephoto (zooming in). These will still be wide enough for most uses, and the dual kits are ideal for starters - they cover just about everything and I'd only recommended getting additional lenses once you are used to the kit lenses and have identified your priority uses.

One of those might be a proper wide angle lens, like the Sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16 or 12-24 for the canon/nikon/sony, or the Zuiko 9-18 for the Olympus. Depending on exhange rate some of these might just squeeze into your additional lens budget - at the moment I think the Sigma is probably the only one that does, and it's the least 'high quality' of the lot, but we're splitting hairs really.

I've found wide angles actually have a slightly different effect than you might first think. While you can crop down and get a nice landscape



Actually the main thing they do is add in a lot of foreground to the shot. This can be good news for landscape because we should be trying to get something interesting in the foreground, but you have to be aware of it.

Does IS make a huge difference when using a Canon? I must admit, I don't have the steadiest hand in the world.....

Yes. Especially at the telephoto end. I would take the 450D + 55-250IS over the 500D + 70-300 for this reason (it's also a smaller/lighter lens I think, and probably easier to get good use out of).

Also, should I buy a UV filter for every lens as well?

Nope. All the cameras have UV filters built in. If you're going somewhere where you might expose the lens element to some danger while shooting then sure, worth putting a clear or UV filter on, so that you can remove it when it is damaged, but you have to spend a bit of money to get one that doesn't impact on image quality.

[Bobster]

Originally Posted by unreal

Would a 30D be much of an upgrade in comparison to a 400D?

EDIT: Actually scrap that, had a look around - it's decent but not worth the effort of selling mine and upgrading!

its a prosumer body rather than a consumer body..

[TheAnimus]

How wide do you want to go?

Given that tools such as Microsoft research's ICE are just absolutely amazing. (seriously if you've not used this stitching tool, its just incredible). I would say that panorama's can often be better in high light, low wind with a burst approach even without a tripod now. The guys who they've got there have some way of understanding pictures with maths I would love to get my head round.

So for panoramas, without stitching you generally need a rather good lense, when taking a city scape, chromatic aberations are common with the structures, they look more apparent because its generally the higher frequency that fringes (ie blue) and the cityscape lends itself to this perfectly. Even my £500 16-50mm does this when focused quite close at 2.8, whilst having background that is 50meters plus away. Buying a lens that lets you take really good wide is expensive, and often heavy if fast enough for indoors, so if you are just wanting panoramas, check out the free ICE tool before spending money.

However, shots like kalniel's of the cat above show the lovely effect you can get when doing a nice wider shot, the great thing about those is you don't generally need such an expensive lense to do that. I like my f2.8 because if i crank it to 400/800 iso, been pentax stablised in the body, i can take good shots in musuems which obviously had no flash allowed. If you want to be able to do that sort of thing, which as Kalniels above shows can have a great effect of drawing you in, then a decent wide is well worth it. I borrowed a sigma 10-20mm from a mate at a club and it is rather nice, but if your budget is only £600, you might want to spend it else where.

[GSte]

Originally Posted by kalniel

Night shots.. are generally dark enough that you're talking non-hand-holdable shutter lengths so a tripod is more important than any particular camera model (my P&S takes great night shots as long as I leave the shutter open long enough!)

I found with my P+S that even with long shutter lengths there was still plenty of glare from the light source, which generally obscured what I wanted to capture. I'd love to be able to take pictures like this one here though.

Originally Posted by kalniel

Nope. All the cameras have UV filters built in. If you're going somewhere where you might expose the lens element to some danger while shooting then sure, worth putting a clear or UV filter on, so that you can remove it when it is damaged, but you have to spend a bit of money to get one that doesn't impact on image quality.

Ah right, I read something that said always to buy one, thanks for clearing this up.

As far as wide angles go, generally I just wanted to take decent shots of buildings and nice pictures from the tops of mountains, and had read that a wide angle lens was best for landscapes..... generally on the side of a mountain though I never want to capture much of the foregroud, just what's in the distance, so might keep a wide angle on the backburner as you suggest.


And thanks again for all the excellent detailed advice, I really do appreciate it.

[GSte]

Originally Posted by Bobster

its a prosumer body rather than a consumer body..

How does that make it better mate? Better sensor/build quality/features/combination of the three?

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

How wide do you want to go?

Given that tools such as Microsoft research's ICE are just absolutely amazing. (seriously if you've not used this stitching tool, its just incredible). I would say that panorama's can often be better in high light, low wind with a burst approach even without a tripod now. The guys who they've got there have some way of understanding pictures with maths I would love to get my head round.

So for panoramas, without stitching you generally need a rather good lense, when taking a city scape, chromatic aberations are common with the structures, they look more apparent because its generally the higher frequency that fringes (ie blue) and the cityscape lends itself to this perfectly. Even my £500 16-50mm does this when focused quite close at 2.8, whilst having background that is 50meters plus away. Buying a lens that lets you take really good wide is expensive, and often heavy if fast enough for indoors, so if you are just wanting panoramas, check out the free ICE tool before spending money.

However, shots like kalniel's of the cat above show the lovely effect you can get when doing a nice wider shot, the great thing about those is you don't generally need such an expensive lense to do that. I like my f2.8 because if i crank it to 400/800 iso, been pentax stablised in the body, i can take good shots in musuems which obviously had no flash allowed. If you want to be able to do that sort of thing, which as Kalniels above shows can have a great effect of drawing you in, then a decent wide is well worth it. I borrowed a sigma 10-20mm from a mate at a club and it is rather nice, but if your budget is only £600, you might want to spend it else where.

Cheers for this mate.